Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX U.P. versus S/S OM PRAKASH AGARWAL, GALLA VYAPARI, KARVI

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P. v. S/S Om Prakash Agarwal, Galla Vyapari, Karvi - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 2867 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 18054 (19 October 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.

Present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 23rd June, 2004 relating to the assessment year 2000-2001.

The dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "dealer") claimed to have made purchases of Mahua flower for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal for Rs. 7,25,817.60 paise and claimed to have dispatched outside the State of U.P. at the destination of the Ex-U.P. Principal. Before the assessing authority, it was submitted that purchases have been made against 6 R on the basis of the purchase orders issued by the Ex-U.P. Principal. Details have been filed giving the detail of the purchase order, value of the goods, date of dispatch, expenses, truck number, gate pass etc. The assessing authority has not doubted these details and merely on the ground that the details of the payment have not been furnished by the dealer. The claim of purchases for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal have been rejected. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal and accepted the claim of the purchases made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. Tribunal held that the assessing authority has not disputed to have made purchases for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. Tribunal further observed that necessary explanation with regard to the payment was also furnished by the dealer. In view of the fact that necessary details of purchase order, value of the goods, date of dispatch, expenses, truck number, gate pass etc have been furnished before the assessing authority and the same has not been disputed. There was no justification in rejecting the claim of the purchases being made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. Finding of the Tribunal in this regard is finding of fact. No question of law is involved in the present revision.

Revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated.19.10.2006.

VS.2867/04.


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.