Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S OM GUR KHANDSARI UDYOG versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Om Gur Khandsari Udyog v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 923 of 1998 [2006] RD-AH 12174 (25 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 43

Trade Tax Revision no. (923) Of 1998.

M/S Om Gur Khandsari Udyog, Baghpat. ... Revisionist.

Versus

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 26th  February,  1998 relating to the assessment year 1992-1993 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.

The applicant was carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of Khansdsari, Gur and Gur Rusket etc.  The applicant claimed to have dispatched the entire manufactured goods outside the State of U. P. to the Commission Agent for sale on consignment basis and no sales were made within the State of U. P.  The Assessing Authority estimated the turnover of Gur, Gur Rusket within the State of U. P. on the ground that at the time of survey made at the premises of M/S Ganesh Trading Company, Baraut, one book named as Exbt. 9 was found, in which, entries relating to the applicant was present.  It was held that such entries relates to the sales made by the applicant to the said party and not incorporated in the books of account.  First Appeal filed by the applicant was rejected.  Applicant filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal vide impugned order allowed the appeal in part and estimated the turnover at Rs.14,76,793/- as against the turnover at Rs.17,29,910/- estimated by the Assessing Authority.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that Exbt. 9, was seized from the business premises of M/S Ganesh Trading Company, Baraut andnot from the business premises of the applicant. He submitted that the applicant has sought opportunity of cross-examination of M/S Ganesh Trading Company, Baraut, but the same has not been allowed, therefore, entries of Exbt. 9, which was seized from the premises M/S Ganesh Trading Company, Baraut cannot be relied upon against the applicant.  He further submitted that M/S Ganesh Trading Company, Baraut during his statement, has denied to have made any purchase from the applicant and therefore, the authorities below have illegally held that the applicant made sales to M/S Ganesh Trading Company, Baraut.  

I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant.  Before the Assessing Authority in reply to the Show-cause-notice, applicant has asked for examination of Exbt. 9 and also sought the copy of

statement of Proprietor of M/S Ganesh Trading Company, Baraut.  None of the document shows the aforesaid two requests, have not been accepted.  Perusal of order of Tribunal and the written submissions filed before the Tribunal reveals that the entries in Exbt. 9 has not been disputed relating to the applicant business.  It has been argued that the entries did not relates to the sales, but it relates to the brokerage transactions which has not been accepted on the ground that in the entries, brokerage was not mentioned.  The entries of the Exbt. 9 were also not found entered in the books of account.  In the circumstances, I do not find any error in the estimate of turnover, which is based on the entries of Exbt. 9 not found entered in the books of account In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present revision.

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

Dt:25.07.2006.

MZ/-


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.