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


The Commissioner Trade Tax v. S/S Hindustan Seientific Glass And Fancy Glass Ware - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 131 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 12237 (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).


Court no. 43

Trade Tax Revision no. (131) Of 2000.


Trade Tax Revision no. (132) Of 2000.

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow..... Revisionist.


S/S Hindustan Scientific Glass and Fancy Glassware, Firozabad.                                                                                 ... Opp. Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These two revisions under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 27th  May,  2000 relating to the assessment year 1991-1992 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act.

In both the revisions, question relates to the rejection of books of account and the taxability of Coal-Ash has been raised, but the question relating to the taxability of Coal Ash arises only under the U. P. Trade Tax Act and not under the Central Sales Tax Act.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the dealer/opp. party (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer") was carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of Glass-ware and Bangles etc. but did not maintained the books of account as required under Section 12(2) of the Act, thus, the Tribunal has erred in accepting the books of account.  Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that it is the case of the dealer that he had sold burnt coal which had been wrongly stated in the books of account as the Coal Ash and burnt coal does not have a burning capacity, thus such burnt coal cannot be treated as Coal Learned Counsel for the dealer relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.  The First Appellate Authority has deleted the estimate of concealed turnover both under the U. P. Trade Tax as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act on the ground that no suppression was found and it has also been held that the turnover has been estimated on the basis of penalty, which has been subsequently deleted.  The order of the First Appellate Authority has been confirmed by the Tribunal.  Neither the First Appellate Authority nor the Tribunal has accepted the books of account, in the absence of non-maintenance of manufacturing account under Section 12 (2), thus, the question raised in the revision has no merit.

So far as, question relating to the taxability of burnt coal is concerned, I find substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel.  The burnt coal does not have a burning capacity and therefore, it can not be treated as a coal.  Thus, the Tribunal has erred in treating it as a coal.  The order of Tribunal is accordingly set aside.

In the result, revision no. (132) of 2000 is allowed in part and the Revision no. (131) of 2000 is dismissed.  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.