Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Purana Loha Bhandar v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 344 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 12039 (24 July 2006)


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).


Court no. 43

Trade Tax Revision no. 344 Of 2005.

M/S Purana Loha Bhandar, Auraiya. ... Revisionist.


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow..... Opp. Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 10th  February,  2005 relating to the assessment year 1995-96 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.

The applicant was carrying on the business of old Iron Scraps and was assessed under the summary scheme vide order dated 11.3.1998 and was declared non-taxable.  Subsequently it was found that the applicant had sold Scraps for Rs.39,000/- against Bill no. 54 on 11.10.1995 which was not found recorded in the books of account and accordingly a proceeding under Section 21 of the Act was initiated.  During the assessment proceeding, dealer was asked to produce the books of account.  Dealer claimed that he had maintained Cash-book, Ledger and Cash-memo, but the Cash-memo could not be produced at the time of hearing.  The order of the Assessing Authority has been confirmed in the first appeal and in the Second Appeal.

Heard Sri S. Chopra, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.

Learned Counsel for the applicant referred to the Supplementary affidavit, in which, it is, stated that for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1997-98 and 1998-99, applicant was declared non taxable being the turnover below the taxable limit, this averment of the Supplementary-affidavit, has not been disputed in the Counter-affidavit filed in reply to the Supplementary-affidavit.  He submitted that looking to the past and future assessment and only material of suppression for Rs.39,000/-, estimate of the turnover at Rs.25 Lacs is arbitrary and excessive.  Learned Standing Counsel submitted that only one sale against Bill no. 54 was detected and the applicant must have issued bills prior to Bill no. 54 which could not be produced, therefore, presumption is that the similar amount of sale has been affected against other bills also.  

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.  In my opinion, having regard to the facts of the case that the applicant was declared non taxable in the years 1993-94, 1994-

95, 1997-98 and 1998-99 and only specific material of suppression for Rs.39,000/- is available on record.  The estimate of turnover at Rs.25 Lacs appears to be arbitrary and excessive.  In my view, turnover at Rs.10 Lacs is reasonable on which, dealer is liable to pay tax.  

In the result, revision is allowed in part.  Order of Tribunal dated 10.02.2005 is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate order under Section 11 (8) of the Act.




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


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 |

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