High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner ,Trade Tax ,U.P. Lucknow v. Hindustan Rice - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 177 of 2000  RD-AH 5971 (10 March 2006)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.177 OF 2000
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.180 OF 2000
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.182 OF 2000
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.184 OF 2000
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.186 OF 2000
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.187 OF 2000
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.189 OF 2000
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.190 OF 2000
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.192 OF 2000
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.193 OF 2000
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Applicant
M/s Hindustan Rice Ind. Nawabganj, Bareilly. .Opp.party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
These are 10 revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") arise from the order of Tribunal dated 23.08.1999, by which Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied under section 15-A (1)(a) of the Act.
Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of rice. Paddy was one of the raw material. Dealer was holding recognition certificate under section 4-B of the Act and was entitled for full exemption on the purchase of paddy as per the recognition certificate. The notification granting full exemption on the purchase of paddy has been amended by the notification no.ST-II-1624/XI-7(159)/91-U.P.Act-15/48-Order-94, dated 21.05.1994 and under the aforesaid notification full exemption has been withdrawn and the dealer was made liable to tax @ 2%. In pursuance thereof, it appears that notices were issued. Dealer filed writ petition in this Court. This Court passed the interim order. It appears that in pursuance of the interim order for the month of July, August, November, December, 1994 and January, February, March, April, November and December, 1995, dealer could not deposit the tax @ 2% alongwith returns. Thereafter, on the dismissal of the writ petition, petitioner filed appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court alongwith stay application and during the pendency of appeal and stay application, penalty notices were issued and penalty levied. Dealer pleaded that it was bonafidely contesting the matter and, therefore, amount could not be deposited alongwith returns. However, it is stated that the tax has been deposited. For the late deposit of tax, assessing authority levied the penalty under section 15-A (1) (a) of the Act. Tribunal by the impugned order deleted the penalty. Tribunal held that dealer was bonafidely contesting the matter, thus, there was no justification for the penalty.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. On the facts and circumstances of the case, findings of the Tribunal is finding of fact, which does not require any interference.
In the result, all the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.