Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX versus S/S SUBHASH TRANSPORT PVT. LTD

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner Of Trade Tax v. S/S Subhash Transport Pvt. Ltd - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 3075 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 19242 (15 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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

By the impugned order, Tribunal has confirmed the order of the first appellate authority. First appellate authority has deleted the penalty to the extent of Rs.4,24,600/- and upheld the penalty of Rs.2000/- under section 15-A (1) (q) of the Act only as a token penalty. It appears that at the entry check post in respect of the goods 149 bags of Supari, bill, builty could not be produced, which was produced subsequently and hence goods were seized and subsequently released on furnishing of bank guarantee. In respect of the said goods, driver of the vehicle applied for Form 34, which was issued at the entry check post. The said Form 34 was admittedly surrendered at the exit check post. However, in pursuance of the seizure of the goods, penalty under section 15-A (1) (q) of the Act has been levied. First appellate authority held that there was no violation of Section 28-B of the Act inasmuch as Form 34 was surrendered at the exit check post. However, as a token penalty of Rs.2000/- has been upheld by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Since in respect of the goods Form 34 was obtained at the entry check post and was surrendered at the exist check, the provisions of Section 28-B was complied with and provisions of Section 15-A (1) (q) of the Act was not applicable.

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

Dated.15.11.2006.

VS.3075/04


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.