Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U.P. versus S/S AIR TACK PVT. LTD.

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 Air Tack Pvt. Ltd. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 2986 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 18763 (6 November 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. 2986 of 2004

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 2988of 2004

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

Versus

 S/S Air Tack Pvt. Ltd., Site-4, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad.    Opp.Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 7th July, 2004  relating to the assessment year, 1997-98.

By the impugned order, Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax and confirmed the order of the first appellate authority.

The main objection was that the dealer had a factory at Ghaziabad and Depot at Delhi. Dealer had sold the goods from Ghaziabad factory within the State of U.P., in the course of inter-State sale and in the course of export . From the Delhi Depot, sales to the extent of Rs.25,21,906/- was disclosed. The sales made from the Delhi Depot has been treated as inter-State sales from Ghaziabad factory on the ground that at the time of survey dated 11th August, 1998, Manager of the Company stated that in respect of the sales made from Ghaziabad factory, bills were raised from the Delhi Depot. Dealer had filed an explanation immediately after the survey on 11th August, 1998, stating therein that in the survey report by mistake the aforesaid fact has been stated. It was further explained that from the Delhi Depot, sales of those goods were made, which were purchased from J.S Engineers, Delhi, Singer India Ltd., Delhi and Usha Engineers, Ghaziabad and not of goods manufactured at Ghaziabad factory. It was submitted that the goods were not dispatched from Ghaziabad factory to Delhi by way of stock transfer. First appellate authority has accepted the books of account and disclosed turnover after accepting the explanation of the dealer in respect of various objections raised by the assessing authority, which has been affirmed by the Tribunal. Findings of both the appellate authorities are finding of fact. No question of law is involved in the present revisions.

In the result, both the revisions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated.06.11.2006.

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.