Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER,TRADE TAX,U.P.LUCKNOW versus S/S GANGA INTERNATIONAL RANI KUNWA,VARANASI

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 Ganga International Rani Kunwa,Varanasi - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 547 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 15822 (11 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.(547) of 1999

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

Versus

M/S Ganga International, Ranikunwa, Varanasi.                                       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 of Tribunal dated 16.02.1999 relating to the assessment year, 1991-92 by which the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the first appellate authority and deleted the penalty levied under section15-A (1) (o) of the Act.

Brief facts of the case are that on 06.07.1991 at Gadauliya crossing, one Ambassador Car no.MMI-3357 was inspected by the STO (SIB). On inspection, four Bundles of silk yarn were found. Cash memo, challan etc were not produced at the time of inspection, therefore, show cause notice under section 13-A of the Act was issued. In pursuance of the notice, one Shree Prakash appeared before the STO (SIB) and produced the challan no.3 dated 06.07.1991 prepared in letter pad of S/S Ganga International, C.K. 28/38, Rani Kunwa, Varanasi. By the said challan, the goods were sent to M/S Guru Prasad, Silk Stores, Lohata, Varanasi. The goods were seized as it was not accompanied by the proper documents and was subsequently released on furnishing of security. In pursuance of the seizure order, penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act was levied. First appellate authority deleted the penalty on the ground that there was no material of import of of goods from outside the State of U.P. The said view has been confirmed by the Tribunal.

Heard learned counsel of the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel has produced the record relating to the seizure of the goods. Show cause notice and the seizure order do not suggest that the goods were imported from outside the State of U.P. No material has been shown to establish that the goods have been imported from outside the State of U.P. Section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act is applicable for the violation of Section 28A of the Act, which provides the import of goods from outside the State of U.P. against declaration form. In the present case, the department is not able to prove that the goods were imported from outside the State of U.P. Thus, the Tribunal and the First Appellate Authority have rightly deleted the penalty levied under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act.

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

Dated.11.09.2006.

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.