Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S JAI AMBE MINI RICE MILL, MIRZAPUR versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P., LKO.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Jai Ambe Mini Rice Mill, Mirzapur v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P., Lko. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 239 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 15384 (5 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

Court no. 22

Trade Tax Revision no.  239 Of 2000.

M/S Jai Ambe Mini Rice Mill, Mirzapur. ... Revisionist.

       Versus

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 the "Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal, dated 28th, December, 1999 relating to the assessment year 1988-89.

The brief facts of the case are that Sri Sita Ram Jaiswal applied for registration in Form 14 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act as a guardian on behalf of his minor son Shri Brajesh Kumar Jaiswal for carrying on the business of manufacturing and sales of rice in the name of M/S Jai Ambe Mini Rice Mill, Tandon Colony, Bathuwa, Mirzapur.  The application in Form 14 was signed by the guardian Sri Sita Ram Jaiswal.  The application was rejected on the ground that minor cannot be granted registration.  The order of the Assessing Authority was up held by the First Appellate Authority as well as by the Tribunal in Second Appeal.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no prohibition under the Act or Rule that the minor cannot carry on the business and apply for registration through the guardian.  He submitted that Section 19 of the Act provides assessment and recovery of tax from the guardian carrying on the business on behalf of minor, thus the registration to minor cannot be denied.    Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.  

I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant.

Section 19 reads as follows:-

Section-19-Assessment of minors and incapacitated persons- In the case of any guardian, trustee or agent of any minor or other incapacitated person carrying on business on behalf of and for the benefit of such minor or other incapacitated person, the tax shall be levied upon and recoverable from such guardian, trustee or agent, as the case may be in like manner and to the same extent as it would be leviable upon and recoverable from any such person or other incapacitated person, if he were of full age and sound mind and if he were conducting the business himself, and all the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder shall apply accordingly.

Learned Standing Counsel is not able to show any provisions under the Act or Rule, which prohibits that the minor cannot carry on the business through the guardian and is not entitled for registration.  Section 19 of the Act referred hereinabove, provides that in case of any guardian carrying on the business on behalf of the minor, the tax shall be levied and recoverable from such guardian in like manner and to the same extent as it would be leviable upon and recoverable from any such person, if he were of full age and sound mind and if he were conducting the business himself and all the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder, shall apply accordingly.

The above provision shows that the Act recognizes the guardian as a dealer carrying on the business on behalf of the minor.  Thus, refusal to grant registration to a guardian carrying on the business on behalf of minor, is not legally correct.  In the circumstances, order of the Tribunal and the authorities below are liable to be set aside.  The Assessing Authority is directed to consider the application afresh treating the guardian of minor as a dealer, entitled for registration under the Act.  The Registration application may be processed, be examined in accordance to law and necessary orders, may be passed within two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order.

In the result, revision is allowed.  Order of the Tribunal dated 28.12.1999 is set aside.  The Assessing Authority is directed to pass appropriate order in the light of observations made above.

Dt:05.09.2006.

MZ/-


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.