Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GENERAL TRADING CORPORATION (MFG.) versus COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


General Trading Corporation (Mfg.) v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 458 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13852 (21 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.458 OF 2006

General Trading Corporation (Mfg.).       ....Applicant

Versus

Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow.   .Opp.party

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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 18.01.2006 relating to the assessment year 2001-02.

Applicant was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of wooden crates. In the original assessment proceeding, applicant claimed to have purchased wooden  plank for Rs.48,85,171/- from the registered dealer and in respect of which, the details namely, name of the parties, their registration number, quantity of the goods, value of the goods etc. were furnished.  The purchases were verified and as an interim measure the statement of the applicant was accepted in the original assessment order with the direction to the Ledger Keeper to send the information about the said purchases to the concerned officer.  Subsequently, assessing authority  received the information from the S.T.O. (S.I.B.) that M/s Hindustan Timber Corporation, Station Road, Bahraich could not furnish the return for three years; M/s Janta Ply Udyog, Ambedkar Nagar closed its business on 30.06.2000 for ever; and on enquiry M/s Sushil & Sons, E-169, Moti Jheel Colony, Aishbagh, Lucknow and M/s Avadh Timbers, E-198, Indira Nagar, Lucknow were found non-existence. It was informed that at the address of M/s Avadh Timbers, one Sri Mohan Singh was found residing and at the address of M/s Sushil & Sons, one Sri Akhileshwar was found residing. On the basis of the aforesaid informations, assessing authority issued show cause notice and, thereafter, levied the tax on the purchases made from the aforesaid four parties treating the said purchases made from unregistered dealers under section 3-AAAA of the Act. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order,  allowed the appeal in part. Tribunal has accepted the claim of the applicant in respect of the purchases made from M/s Hindustan Timbers Corporation, Station Road, Bahraich but has rejected the claim of the purchases from other three parties namely, M/s Janta Ply Udyog, M/s Sushil & Sons, Lucknow and M/s Avadh Timbers, Lucknow and confirmed the levy of tax on the said purchases under section 3-AAAA of the Act treating the said purchases from unregistered dealer.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during the course of assessment proceeding, applicant had furnished the registration numbers of all the three parties and if on enquiry made after three years, their business were found closed or they were not found available  at the address given, it can not be presumed that the said parties were not in existence during the year under consideration and were not registered under U. P. Trade Tax Act. He submitted that the enquiry report does not suggest that the registration number of the three parties were found forged or non-genuine. He submitted that unless it is found that registration number of the aforesaid three parties were forged, it can be presumed that they were unregistered during the year under consideration.  Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of Tribunal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.

I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. It is settled principle of law that under section 21 of the Act burden lies upon the revenue to prove its case. The enquiry report  does not reveal that the registration number of the three parties, namely, M/s Janta Ply Udyog, Ambedkar Nagar, M/s Sushil & Sons, E-169, Moti Jheel, Aishbagh, Lucknow and M/s Avadh Timber, E-198, Indira Nagar, Lucknow were found forged. Admittedly, the enquiry was made after three years.  Unless the enquiry reveals that during the year under consideration the aforesaid three parties were not registered and their given registration number were forged, it can not be presumed that they were not registered dealer. In the case of M/s Janta Ply Udyog, Ambedkar Nagar, it is stated that the business of the said firm was closed on 30.06.2000 but it may be that their registration might continued. The verification of the registration number of the said three parties is not difficult. It may be verified from the concerned officer but the said exercise had not been made by the assessing authority. In my opinion, without making out a case that the registration number of the three parties were forged or non-genuine  and they were not in existence during the year under consideration, it can not be presumed that they were unregistered dealer during the year under consideration on the basis of enquiry made after three years.  In the circumstances, matter requires further enquiry by the assessing authority.

In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to pass the assessment order afresh in the light of the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dt.21.08.2006

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.