Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U.P. versus S/S DIESEL LOCOMOTIVE WORKS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. v. S/S Diesel Locomotive Works - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1999 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 14345 (24 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

Present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 17th February, 2004 relating to the assessment year, 1998-99.

The opposite party had made certain inter-State sales. Before the assessing authority, opposite party could not furnish Form C in respect of the amount of Rs.1,50,25,762/- and, accordingly, assessing authority levied tax at the rate of 10 percent. Opposite party filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Varanasi. Before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), opposite party filed 8 Form C. The said Form C was got verified from Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) III, Varanasi and after the verification, the benefit of concessional rate of tax of Rs.1,26,69,243/- was allowed. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal, which has been rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Forms C which were submitted for the first time before the appellate authority were not allowed in accordance to Section 12-B of the Act.

I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned Standing Counsel. The order of the first appellate authority shows that forms were got verified from Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), III, Varanasi. Section 12-B of the Act says that upon the additional evidence being taken on record, reasonably opportunity for challenge to rebut shall be given to the assessing officer. In the present case, such opportunity was not given to the assessing officer. Therefore, the requirement of Section 12-B of the Act has been complied with.

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

Dated.24.08.2006.

Vs.1999/04.


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.