Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S TARA GOODS CARRIER, SEVALA JAT, AGRA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Tara Goods Carrier, Sevala Jat, Agra - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 3055 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 19247 (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.

On the basis of the information received that the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") had obtained Form-34 and the same was not surrendered at the exit check post, assessment proceeding was initiated and ex-party order was passed. The matter was remanded back by the first appellate authority vide order dated 10.04.1990 with the direction to the assessing authority to provide the copy of Form-34 and other necessary details but despite the specific direction given by the first appellate authority Form-34 and the other necessary details could not be confronted and the assessment order was again passed. First appeal was allowed on the ground that despite the direction given by first appellate authority to provide the copy of Form-34 and the necessary details were not provided and thus, the assessing authority failed to prove that such Form-34 was obtained by the dealer. Order of the first appellate authority has been confirmed by the Tribunal by the impugned order.  I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact. It is settled principle of law that Form-34 on the basis of which assessment proceeding against the dealer has been initiated should be confronted to the party concerned. In case, if the assessing authority fails to confront the Form-34, which is made basis for the initiation of proceedings against the dealer, it is deemed that the assessing authority failed to prove its case. In the present case despite the direction being given by the first appellate authority Form-34 and other necessary details have not been confronted to the dealer. Therefore, both the appellate authorities have rightly deleted the tax levied by the assessing authority.

In the result, Trade Tax Revision Nos.3055 and 3060 of 2004 fails and are accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.15.11.06

R./3055/04


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.