Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX LUCKNOW versus S/S ROYAL BENGAL TRANSPORT CP

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Trade Tax Lucknow v. S/S Royal Bengal Transport Cp - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1919 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 13965 (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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J

By the impugned order, Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the first appellate authority deleting the penalty levied under section 13-A (4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

The goods were being transported from Delhi to Calcutta. At the entry check post, the driver of the vehicles sought for transit pass. The check post officer seized the goods on the ground that the dealer of the Delhi party was not in existence and the goods relate to the non-bonafide dealer of the State of U.P. and the transaction was a Central Sale in U.P. In pursuance of the seizure, penalty under section 13-A (4) of the Act was levied. First appellate authority deleted the penalty on the ground that before coming to the conclusion that the Delhi party was not in existence, no enquiry was made by the check post officer and the inference drawn was only based on surmises and conjecture. The order of the first appellate authority has been confirmed by the Tribunal.

Admittedly, the goods were coming from Delhi and going to Calcutta and at the entry check post, transit pass was sought. Inference drawn by the check post officer that the Delhi party was not in existence without any enquiry was based on surmises and conjecture. Even assuming that the Delhi part was not in existence and no enquiry was made by the check post officer, it cannot be presumed that the goods related to non-bonafide dealer of the State of U.P. and transaction was a Central sale from U.P. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the present revisions.

In the result, revision nos. 1919 of 2004 and 1920 of 2004 fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated.21.08.2006.

VS


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.