Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER ,TRADE TAX ,U.P. LUCKNOW versus KAMAL MENTHA CORPORATION

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner ,Trade Tax ,U.P. Lucknow v. Kamal Mentha Corporation - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 226 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 15189 (1 September 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, the Tribunal has quashed the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act.  Under Section 21 of the Act, the Assessing Authority estimated the turnover at Rs.2 Lacs and levied tax at Rs.17,000/-.  The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 21 of the Act, which was a jurisdictional notice, was not served in accordance to rule 77.  The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence on record that Sri Zulfiqar Ali, Munshi was some how concerned with the business of the assessee.  Neither he was employee of the assessee nor concerned with the business of the assessee and merely the averment made on behalf of the revenue, some of the earlier notices were received by Sri Zulfiqar Ali and appeared in person, is not sufficient.  The Tribunal relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1980 UPTC page 125, this Court held that service of notice on the stranger is not proper.  The Tribunal further held that at the time of survey, no specific material of suppression was found and the original assessment was made by way of best judgment assessment.  The Tribunal accordingly, quashed the order passed under Section 21 of the Act.  I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.  Finding of Tribunal is the finding of fact.  Learned Standing Counsel is not able to show any material to the contrary.

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

Dt:01.09.2006.

MZ/226/2000.


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.