Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S TIRUPATI ENTERPRISES, 34 SAKET, MEERUT

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Tirupati Enterprises, 34 Saket, Meerut - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 94 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 6860 (2 December 2005)

 

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.

It appears that during the year under consideration, dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the Dealer") sold goods to M/S Sewak Rubber Product, Kourtdwar against Form 3-B no. 172132 at Rs.9,326/-.  On the basis of Form 3-B, exemption on the turnover was claimed.  Assessing Authority allowed the exemption vide order dated 19.2.1990.  It appears that the Assessing Authority received information from the Asstt. Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax, Bijnor vide letter no. 41 dated 20.7.1992 that the Recognition Certificate of M/S Sewak Rubber Product, Kourtdwar was modified and only partial exemption was allowed to such dealer.  On the basis of the said information, order under Section 22 of the Act was passed and against the aforesaid Form 3-B no. 172132, only partial exemption was allowed and the claim of full exemption was disallowed.  Dealer filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed.  Tribunal held that disallowance of full exemption did not come within the purview of mistake apparent on the face of record and order under Section 22 of the Act was unjustified.

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal.  It appears that M/S Sewak Rubber Product, Kourtdwar was holding Recognition Certificate for full exemption and accordingly, Form 3-B for full exemption was issued.  On the basis of which, dealer had claimed full exemption.  If the Recognition Certificate of M/S Sewak Rubber Product, Kourtdwar was modified subsequently and instead of full exemption only partial exemption was allowed, the dealer cannot be held responsible, inasmuch as dealer received Form 3-B for full exemption   In any view of the matter, issue was debatable and therefore, outside the purview of Section 22.

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

Dt:02.12.2005.

MZ/-(94)/99.


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.