Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX,U.P.LUCKNOW versus S/S ANNAPURNA LAGHU DAL UDYOG GURSARAI JHANSI

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 Annapurna Laghu Dal Udyog Gursarai Jhansi - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 112 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 16420 (19 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.  (112) Of 2000.

Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow.... Revisionist.

       Versus

M/S Annapurna Laghu Dal Udyog, Jhansi.... 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 27th, April, 2000 relating to the assessment year 1993-94.

During the year under consideration, Dealer/opp. party (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer") had made purchases of Food-grains from M/S Harihar Bhandar, Etah for Rs.58,99,562/- and Oil-seed for Rs.12,30,475/- from M/S Prakash Enterprises, Jalaun.  Before the Assessing Authority, though, the dealer claimed exemption on the aforesaid purchases but requisite Forms 3-C (2) could not be filed.  In the absence of Forms 3-C (2), the Assessing Authority refused to allow the exemption and levied tax on the aforesaid purchases treating the dealer as first purchaser.  Dealer filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Jhansi.  In the appeal, 4 Forms 3-C (2) obtained from M/S Harihar Bhandar, Etah and 1 Form 3-C (2) obtained from M/S Prakash Enterprises, Jalaun were filed alongwith an application under Section 12-B.  Application under Section 12-B was allowed and Assessing Authority was allowed opportunity to give report in respect of alleged Forms 3-C (2).  The Assessing Authority in its report submitted that the registration of M/S Harihar Bhandar, Etah was cancelled with effect from 01.4.1993, therefore, for this year, it was unregistered dealer.    In respect of transactions with S/S  Prakash Enterprises, Jalaun, it was stated that the said party had not shown in the list of Forms, to have been issued the alleged Forms to M/S Annapurna Laghu Dal Udyog.  On the basis of the report given by the Assessing Authority, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax rejected the claim of exemption.  Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, dealer filed appeal before the Tribunal.  Before the Tribunal, dealer submitted that the registration of M/S Harihar Bhandar, Etah was cancelled on 30.12.1993 with effect from 01.4.1993 and the alleged Forms were found issued by the Assessing Authority to such parties on 05.5.1993.  It was further submitted that in Appeal no. 79 of 1994, the order of cancellation of registration was set-aside on 25.7.1994.  An affidavit of M/S Prakash Enterprises, Jalaun was also filed, in which, they have admitted that the alleged Form 3-C (2) no. 155740 was issued by it to M/S Annapurna Laghu Dal Udyog and by mistake in the list, it was shown to have been issued to M/S Nageshwar Tel Udyog, Kanpur.  The Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid facts, allowed the exemption on the basis of Forms 3-C (2) filed before the First Appellate Authority.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.  5 Forms 3-C (2) filed  before the First Appellate Authority against which exemption was claimed, were not found forged.  They have been issued by the Trade Tax Authorities to the aforesaid two parties namely M/S Harihar Bhandar, Etah and M/S Prakash Enterprises, Jalaun.  Both the aforesaid parties have also admitted to have issued such Forms 3-C (2) to the present dealer.  Thus, the claim of exemption has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal.

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

Dt:19.09.2006.

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.