Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S ARVIND MOTORS,THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR ARVIND BANSAL versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Arvind Motors,Through Its Sole Proprietor Arvind Bansal v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P.Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 308 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 18092 (26 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

Court no.22

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.308 of 1999

M/S Arvind Motors, Firozabad.             Applicant

Versus

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 5th April, 1999 relating to the assessment year 1993-1994.

Admitted facts of the case are that the applicant had purchased chassis from M/S Scooter India Limited, Lucknow against Form 3-A without payment of tax after getting the body mounted over it and sold in the form of Tempo. Assessing authority levied the tax on the purchases of chassis under section 3-AAAA of the Act on the ground that the chassis was not sold in the same form and condition. Thus, short question involved in the present revision is whether the tax levied on the purchases of chassis is justified or not.

Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.

Issue involved in the present revision is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Versus S/S Kumar Motors, Bareilly reported in 2004 UPTC 1010 in which it was held that the chassis mounted with the body is commercially with different goods and since the chassis was not sold in the same form and condition, the levy of tax on the purchases of chassis under section 3-AAAA of the Act has been held justified.

Respectfully, following the aforesaid decision, the levy of tax on the purchases of chassis under section 3-AAAA of the Act is upheld.

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

Dated.26.10.2006.

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.