Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW. versus S/S G.K.GLASS IND. PEMESHWARGATE, FIROZABAD.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow. v. S/S G.K.Glass Ind. Pemeshwargate, Firozabad. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 991 of 1998 [2006] RD-AH 1501 (19 January 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.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.991 OF 1999

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1028 OF 1999

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow. ....Applicant

Versus

S/S G.K.Glass Ind. Pemeshwargate, Firozabad. ....Opp. Party

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These two revisions under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 20.05.1999 for the assessment years 1988-89 and 89-90.

In both the revisions, common question involved is rate of tax applicable to the cheep @ 12% treating it as glassware. Tribunal held that cheep is obtained as by product in the manufacturing of bangles. Tribunal held that it has no independent use and is used in decoration alongwith other glass items. Tribunal accordingly, treated it as unclassified item.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. In the case of CST Vs. S/S C.A. Glass Works, Firozabad, reported in 1996 UPTC, 1, this Court held that glass shells manufactured and sold in semi finished form liable to tax as unclassified item and not under the entry "All goods and wares made of glass" of notification no.ST-II-5784/X-10(2)/80-U.P. Act-15-84, Order-81, dated 07.09.1981. Tribunal held that cheep is a by product, obtained in the process of manufacturing of glass bangles and it has no independent commercial value and is used for decoration purposes alongwith other glass items. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that it is not liable to tax as glass ware and liable to tax as unclassified item.

In the result, both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.19.01.2006

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.