Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mangalsen Jain v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 328 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 18880 (8 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).


Court no. 22

Trade Tax Revision no. 328 Of 2000.

Mangalsen Jain Arhati, Meerut. ... Revisionist.


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow..... Opp. Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 12th  January,  2000 relating to the assessment year, 1993-94.

Applicant was carrying on the business of Gur and had disclosed the taxable turnover of the first purchases of Gur at Rs.12,12,649.95.  The Assessing Authority had rejected the books of account and estimated the taxable purchases at Rs.16,50,000/-.  In First Appeal, turnover was reduced to Rs.15 Lacs.  Applicant filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.  The main ground for rejection of the books of account and the enhancement of the turnover is that on the inspection of Vehicle no. DIG-2527 loaded with 57.330 on Gur, a bill no. 5546 dated 25.2.1994 was found.  On verification, it was found that the Carbon copy of the bill-book did not tally with the bill found alongwith the goods, therefore, it was inferred that the bill no. 5546 dated 25.2.1994 which was found alongwith the goods was issued from the duplicate bill book and on this basis, the turnover had been enhanced.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the view taken by the authorities below are not justified.  He submitted that the goods was found entered in the books of account, therefore, the books of account should not be rejected.  Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.  

I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant.  All the authorities have categorically recorded the findings that the Bill no. 5546 dated 25.2.1994, which was found alongwith the goods at the time of inspection-dated 25.2.1994 did not tally with the Carbon copy of the bill of regular bill-book.  No evidence had been adduced to dispute the finding recorded by the Tribunal.  Finding of the Tribunal is the finding of fact, which in the absence of any material, cannot be disputed.  The material, which was taken for rejection of books of account and the turnover, is wholly justified.  The revision is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

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



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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.