High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Amir Ahmad Shoe Maker, Bijnor. v. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 794 of 1999  RD-AH 17453 (10 October 2006)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.794 of 1999
M/S Amir Ahmad Shoe Maker, Bijnor. Applicant
The 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 "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 26th May, 1999 relating to the assessment year, 1988-89.
For the assessment year, 1988-89, applicant has been assessed to tax by the assessing authority on the basis of the stock of shoe and chappal found at the time of survey dated 26.8.1988 made by the STO (SIB). The claim of the applicant was that it was not carrying on any business of shoes and the stock, which were found at time of survey related to his son who was separately carrying on the business. The plea of the applicant was, however, not accepted by the assessing authority upto the stage of the Tribunal and revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act by this Court. This Court vide order dated 9th January, 2004 in Sales Tax Revision No.1456 of 1993 upheld the turnover estimated by the Tribunal at Rs.90,000/-. On the basis of the estimate of the turnover, assessing authority levied the penalty under section 15-A (1) (g) of the Act on the ground that the applicant had carried on the business without taking the registration for which it was liable. Applicant challenged the penalty order in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Trade tax. Appeal was allowed and the penalty order was set aside. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Trade tax, applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the first appellate authority and restored the order of the Assessing Authority.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In my opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case, order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. Merely because the applicant has been assessed to tax on account of rejection of the explanation, it cannot be presumed that the applicant was carrying on the business without taking the registration for which it was liable. The claim of the applicant all-along was that he was not carrying on the business and the stock found at the time of survey dated 26.8.1988 by the STO (SIB) related to separate business carried on by his son, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant deliberately could not obtain the registration and carried on the business.
In the result, revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 26th May, 1999 is set aside and the order of the first appellate authority is restored.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.