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 Lucknow v. S/S Jay Durga Transport Corp - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1886 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 12725 (1 August 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. 1886 Of 2004.

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


S/S Jay Durga Transport Corpn., New Delhi. ...   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 07th  February, 2004, by which, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the First Appellate Authority deleting the penalty under Section 13-A (4).  

Dealer/opposite party claimed to be a transporter and while transporting the goods from Delhi to Calcutta at the entry Check Post, dealer asked for issuance of Form 34.   The goods was however,  detained and seized on the ground that Delhi party was not a bonafide dealer and in pursuance thereof, a penalty under Section 13-A (4) of the Act was levied which has been deleted by the First Appellate Authority.  The order of the First Appellate Authority has been confirmed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Tribunal held that the seizure of the goods and levy of penalty were patently illegal, inasmuch as, alongwith the goods, all the relevant documents were available and the goods was coming from Delhi and was going to Calcutta and was not meant for sale within the State of U. P.  In my opinion, present case is a case of harassment on the part of the Check Post Officer.  Admittedly, dealer had asked at the entry Check Post for issue of Form 34 namely Transit Pass for the movement of goods through the State of U. P. to Calcutta on the basis of documents, available.  No presumption could be drawn that the sender of goods at Delhi was not a bonafide dealer, inasmuch as, this cannot be a ground of seizure of goods and levy of penalty under Section 13-A (4).  The Tribunal has rightly deleted the penalty on the facts and circumstances of the case, which does not require any interference.

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




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.