Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S RAM DAYAL LUXMAN PRASAD versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Ram Dayal Luxman Prasad v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 460 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14510 (28 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.22

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.460 of 2006

M/S Ram Dayal Luxman Prasad, Mathura. Applicant.

Versus

The 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 dated 1st March, 2005 relating to the assessment year 1997-98.

Applicant claimed to have made purchases of goodgrain for the Institution holding certificate of All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission. The claim of exemption on the purchases were made on the ground that such purchases were for the Institution. However, the assessing authority allowed exemption. The assessing authority initiated proceeding under section 22 of the Act on the ground that the exemption on the purchases by the Institution has been withdrawn vide notification No.ST-2-709/XI-9 (53)/91-U.P. Act-15-48-Order-97 dated 27.02.1997 and after giving opportunity to the applicant, the order was rectified under section 22 of the Act and the exemption on the purchases of food grain has been withdrawn and the tax has been levied. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected and the Tribunal has also confirmed the same in the second appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that exemption cannot be withdrawn once allowed in the original assessment proceeding under section 22 of the Act and thus, the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. Vide Notification No. TT-2-2454/XI-9 (53)/91-U.P. Act-XV/48-Order-95, dated 05.10.1995, exemption was available both on the sales and purchases made by the Institution holding certificate of All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission or the Uttar Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board, but vide notification no. ST-2-709/XI-9 (53)/91-U.P. Act-15-48-Order-97 dated 27.02.1997; exemption on the purchases by such Institution has been withdrawn. Since the exemption has been withdrawn by the Notification, the mistake was apparent which did not require argument, debate or any investigation. Thus, the assessing authority has rightly exercised its power under section 22 of the Act and rectified the order withdrawing exemption allowed on the purchases made by the applicant for the Institution claimed to be certified by All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission or the Uttar Pradesh Khadi and village Industries Board.

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

Dated.28.08.2006.

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.