Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSINER, TRADE TAX U.P. LKO. versus S/S R.S. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissiner, Trade Tax U.P. Lko. v. S/S R.S. Construction Company - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 171 of 1998 [2005] RD-AH 913 (30 March 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(171) of 1998

Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow.   Applicant

Versus

S/S R.S. Construction Company, Bareilly.  Opp.Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 11.09.1997 relating to the assessment year 1991-1992.

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was a contractor and appears to have executed civil contract for Rajya Krishi Mandi Parishad and while making the payment Rajya Krishi Mandi Parishad has deducted a sum of Rs. 66,915/- towards tax and deposited with the Trade Tax Authority. In the assessment proceeding, dealer was assessed to tax for Rs.3,479/- and claimed refund for the excess amount deposited on the basis of TDS certificate. Assessing authority denied the refund. First appellate authority , however, accepted the plea of the dealer and directed the assessing authority to refund the amount which has been deducted towards TDS. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed.

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the dealer has charged 8.7%, 9.1%, 9.5% and 9.8% extra in the bill which may be related to the tax. I have perused the order of the Tribunal. Tribunal held that the dealer had filed an affidavit and also reply to the show cause notice in which it was stated that no amount has been charged towards tax. Tribunal further held that the extra amount deducted in the bill was relating to the price and not relating to tax. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to assail the finding recorded by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.

In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.

Dated. 30.03.2005.

VS.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.