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


The Commissioner, Trade Tax Lko. v. S/S Kunwar Pal Singh, Contractor - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 604 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 18925 (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).


Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 15.01.1999 relating to the assessment year 1987-88.

During the year under consideration, dealer had executed the works contract for Rs.5,14,098/- and had also supplied the material for Rs.3,97,498/-.  The works contract was claimed to be a civil works contract and liability of tax had been admitted under Section 7-D of the Act.

So far as supply of material is concerned, dealer claimed to have purchased the material within the State of U. P. and have not imported any goods from outside the State of U. P.  List of purchases of the material was also furnished before the Assessing Authority.  The Assessing Authority, however, levied the tax on the turnover of Rs.4,10,000.  The First Appellate Authority deleted the tax on the ground that the dealer had furnished the list of purchases stating therein, the bill number and the name of seller before the Assessing Authority and all the purchases were made within the State of U. P.  It has also been observed that the purchase vouchers had also been maintained.  The First Appellate Authority held that the dealer had neither used any Forms-C and 31 nor there is any evidence of purchase of goods outside the State of U. P. and accordingly, deleted the tax on the material supplied by the dealer.  Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, has been dismissed by the Tribunal.  The Tribunal affirmed the order of the First Appellate Authority.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Findings of both the Appellate authorities are the findings of fact, which does not require any interference.

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.