Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S MANGLA PLYWOOD PVT. LTD. BIJNOR versus TRADE TAX TRIBUBAL 1ST BENCH MEERUT

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Mangla Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Bijnor v. Trade Tax Tribubal 1st Bench Meerut - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 298 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13502 (17 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.43

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(298) OF 2006

M/s Mangla Plywood Pvt. Ltd., Bijnor.       ....Applicant

Versus

Trade Tax Tribunal Ist Bench, Meerut.   .Opp.party

***************

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

By means of the present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") applicant has challenged the order of Tribunal dated 30.04.2005 for the assessment year 2002-03 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of plywood, block board, flush door etc.  Applicant had also made the purchases of timber from unregistered dealer to the extent of Rs.34,40,438.90 p. . Assessing authority vide order dated 17.07.2004 passed the assessment order both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. Assessing authority had rejected the books of account and estimated the taxable turn over of self-manufactured goods at Rs.1.20 crores and also estimated the purchase of raw material from unregistered dealer at Rs.32 lacs. It appears that turn over of Rs.32 lacs had been estimated on account of enhancement of the turn over of self-manufactured goods. Assessing authority initiated the proceeding under section 21 of the Act on the ground that the tax on the admitted purchase of timber from unregistered dealer to the extent of Rs.34,40,438.90p. could not be subjected to assessment. Assessing authority accordingly levied the tax on the purchase of timber from unregistered dealer under section 21 of the Act. Applicant filed two appeals against the original assessment order both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act and also filed the appeal  against the order under section 21 of the Act. Joint Commissioner (Appeals) allowed all the three appeals and set aside the assessment orders dated 17.07.2004 passed under Rule 41 (8) under section 9 (2) of Central Sales Tax Act and also the order dated 18.08.2004 passed under section 21 of the Act. Against the order passed by Joint Commissioner (Appeals) applicant filed two appeals before the Tribunal. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed three appeals against the said order. Tribunal by the impugned order  allowed the two appeals no.244 of 2004 (U.P.) and 245 of 2004 (Central) filed by the applicant and rejected two appeals no.32 of 2005 (U.P.) and 33 of 2005 (Central) filed by Commissioner of Trade Tax.  Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal no.34 of 2005, filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax arising from the proceedings under section 21 of the Act. By the impugned order, Tribunal has accepted the books of account and disclosed turn over and the tax admitted by the applicant both under U. P. Trade Tax Act and under Central Sales Tax Act and confirmed the levy of tax on the purchases of timber of Rs.34,40,438.90p. from unregistered dealer, levied under section 21 of the Act.

Heard Sri Rohit Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant  and learned Standing Counsel.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the original assessment order, assessing authority had levied the tax on the purchases of raw material, purchased from unregistered dealer at Rs.32 lacs and, therefore, Tribunal has erred in confirming the levy of tax on the purchases made from unregistered dealer at Rs.34,40,438.90p.

I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. In the original assessment order, tax @ 2.5% was levied on the estimated turn over of raw material purchased from unregistered dealer at Rs.32 lacs, which had been estimated on account of enhancement of the turn over relating to the self-manufactured goods and not on the turn over admitted by the applicant. Since the Tribunal has accepted the books of account and the disclosed turn over and taxed thereon, the tax  levied on Rs.32 lacs stands deleted. Thus, it can not be said that the purchases disclosed by the applicant made from unregistered dealer has been assessed to tax in the original assessment order. Since the tax could not be levied under section 3-AAAA of the Act on the purchases of timber made from unregistered dealer on the admitted amount of Rs.34,40,438.90p., the tax has rightly been levied by the Tribunal in the proceedings under section 21 of the Act.

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

Dt.17.08.2006

R./


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.