Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus MALOOK CHANDRA COTTON & OIL MILLS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. Malook Chandra Cotton & Oil Mills - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 78 of 1997 [2004] RD-AH 1403 (10 November 2004)

 

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

COURT NO.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.78 OF 1997

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Applicant

Versus

S/S Malook Chandra Cotton and Oil Mills, Aligarh. ....Opp.party

................

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 30.08.1996 for the assessment year 1990-91.

Following questions have been raised in the present revision:

"1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case learned Member Tribunal is justified to accept the affidavit of Driver of Vehicle No.U.R.X.-250 presented at the latter stage against the statement of the driver made before the Mobile Squad Officer at the time of Checking/seizure ?

2. According to rule 12-B, the 3C forms claiming exemption should be produced at the time of assessment proceedings under rule 41 (7) now 41 (8). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Member Tribunal is justified to grant exemption on such 3C forms produced at first appellate stage and second appellate stage ?

3. to set aside the tax imposed on tin containers despite the fact that as the sale of in tin is a composite one ?"

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Tribunal has affirmed the view of the first appellate authority accepting the books of account.  First appellate authority  had dealt the case in great detail and held that they did not relates to the present dealer. It was also held that at the time of survey dated 19.12.1990 no adverse material was found.

Learned Standing Counsel is not able to assail the finding of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal.

So far as question no.3 is concerned, Tribunal held that the dealer has separately shown the price of tin containers in the bill, apart from the price of the oil and since there was separate stipulation of price for oil and tin, Tribunal held that it was not justified to levy the tax on the turn over of tin, in as much as price was separately charged in the bill. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact and needs no interference.

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

Dt.10.11.2004

R./


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.