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, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Suresh Kuamr Manoj Kuamr Hapur - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 1274 of 1998 [2006] RD-AH 13366 (10 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.  (1274) Of 1998.

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


M/S Suresh Kumar Manoj Kumar, Hapur. .... 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 26, March, 1998 relating to assessment year 1984-85 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.  

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer") was carrying on the business of Gur.  It had claimed that during the year under consideration, dealer purchased 63 Trucks of Gur weighing 7893.65 Quintals for and on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal and dispatched the Gur at the destination of Ex-U. P. Principal.  The Assessing Authority rejected the claim of exemption on the ground that purchase orders of Ex- U. P. Principal was not produced and while making the purchase, it was not known to the seller that the Gur was being purchased for and on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal,  Form 3-C (1) were issued to the selling dealer, in which, declaration was made that it was the first purchaser.  First Appellate Authority allowed the claim of the dealer.  The Tribunal has confirmed the view of First Appellate Authority in appeal.

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

Despite the service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the dealer.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that none of the authorities have examined the transactions before coming to the conclusion that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U. P. Principal or not.  Perusal of order of First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal shows that the transactions have not been examined and only observation has been made that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal and the goods were dispatched on the same date, on which, purchases were made.  The entries in the books of account, the date on which the goods were purchased and dispatched and whether there was any co-relation between the purchases and dispatch, are the necessary aspects to decide whether the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal, but the same has not been examined.  Perusal of assessment order also shows that various transactions have not been examined.  In the circumstances, it would be appropriate that the matter may be sent back to the Assessing Authority to decide the issue afresh in respect of purchases of 63 Trucks of Gur weighing 7893.65 Quintals claimed to be made for and on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal.

In the result, revision is allowed.  Order of Tribunal dated 26.03.1998 is set aside only so far as it relates to the aforesaid transactions and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority to decide the issue afresh in the light of observations made above.




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.