High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Commissioner Trade Tax v. S/S Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Commercial Complex - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1739 of 2004  RD-AH 14939 (31 August 2006)
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 25.02.2004 relating to the assessment year 1988-89.
At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been raised:-
1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to accept the account books of the dealer despite the information available on record were not verified from the account books?
2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to allow the refund of the amount, which was realized by the dealer from the customers?
Perusal of order of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has enhanced the turnover to the extent of an information about the supply could not tally. Dispute relates to the estimate of turnover. In my view, it is concluded by the finding of fact. No question of law is involved.
So far as, the second question relating to the refund of the amount is concerned, the Tribunal held that the dealer had initially charged tax from his customers and on receipt of Form 3-B of the Act, Credit Notes were issued to the parties. It is held that there was no rule in the year under consideration for refund of the amount and the rule 106 to 110 framed in 1993 for refund of the amount under Section 29-A, therefore, following the decision of this Court in the case of M/S O. D. Industries and another versus State of U. P. and others reported in 1996 UPTC page 307, the Assessing Authority was directed that in case if the amount has been refunded to the purchaser, the amount may be refunded to the opp. party in accordance to law. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to show any decision to the contrary of the view taken by this Court in the case of M/S O. D. Industries and another versus State of U. P. and others (supra). Thus, in view of the law laid down by this Court, direction given by the Tribunal cannot said to be erroneous, the same is accordingly, up held.
In the result, revision fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.