Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LOK. versus RUBI BRICK FIELD SARVAT

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lok. v. Rubi Brick Field Sarvat - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 457 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 131 (2 January 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.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. (457) OF 1999.

And

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. (463) OF 1999.

And

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. (468) OF 1999.

And

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. (502) OF 1999.

And

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. (504) OF 1999.

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

Versus

S/S Rubi Brick Field, Muzaffarnagar. ... ... Opp-party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumr, J.

These five revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 19.12.1998 relating to the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93,1993-94 and 1994-95 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act respectively.

Dealer/Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as "the Dealer") was running the Brick Field and was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bricks. Dealer opted Compounding Scheme introduced by the Government under Section 7-D of the Act. Under the Compounding Scheme, dealer was required to pay compounding amount in installments within the specified period. Compounding Scheme also provided that in case of non deposit of tax within the specified time, interest was chargeable. Admittedly, in all the five years, compounding taxes were deposited beyond the specified time, thus, interest was charged. The First Appellate Authority has confirmed the demand of interest. In second Appeal, Tribunal has set aside the demand of interest.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that under Section 2 (n) tax includes composition money, thus all the provisions relating to non deposit of tax is applicable to the Composition money and thus for non deposit of composition money within the specified time, interest is chargeable under Section 8 or as prescribed under the Compounding Scheme. Learned Counsel for the dealer relied upon the order of the Tribunal. I find substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. Section 2 (n) reads as follows:-

Section 2 (n) "tax" includes an additional tax and the composition money accepted under Section 7-D.

In view of the aforesaid definition, composition money is included in the tax, thus all the provisions of the Act applicable to the tax is applicable to the composition money and in case of deposit of composition money beyond the specified time, interest is chargeable under Section 8 (1) of the Act or in case if there is a specific provision under the Composition Scheme for demand of interest, the same is chargeable. The view of Tribunal that the interest is not chargeable for the late deposit of compounding amount is not correct and is accordingly set aside.

In the result, all the aforesaid revisions are allowed. Order of Tribunal with regard to the interest is set aside.

Dt:02.01.2006.

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

Case Details

Case Law Search

Judgement

Copyright

Advertisement