Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S AGARWAL TRADING FLOUR MILLS versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Agarwal Trading Flour Mills v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 53 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 19807 (22 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.

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 06.09.1999 relating to the assessment year 1993-94.

The dispute relates to the rate of tax on the Besan.  The Assessing Authority levied the tax on the turnover of Besan @ 4% covered under the item of Ata, Maida and Suji.  The claim of the applicant was that it was liable to tax  @ 1.5% which had not been accepted in view of the  Notification no. 3369 dated 30.9.1993.  The view of the Assessing Authority has been up held in the First Appeal and by the Tribunal.  The Tribunal observed that vide Notification no. 3369 dated 30.9.1993, Ata, Maida and Suji was taxable @ 4%.  The Tribunal further observed that the entry of Ata, Maida and Suji which was at Serial no.7 of the Notification no. 5785 dated 7.9.1981 was omitted with effect from 01.4.1993 by Notification no. 1007 dated 31.3.1993, therefore, after 01.4.1993, Ata, Maida and Suji was liable to tax as an unclassified item @ 10%.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant is not able to show any notification, under which, Besan was liable to tax @ 1.5% in the year under consideration.  In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal therefore, the order of the Tribunal is up held.

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

Dt:22.11.2006.

MZ/53/2000


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.