Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lko. v. S/S Gupta General Store Sabzi Bazar, Hapur - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 85 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 15325 (4 September 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).


Court no. 22

Trade Tax Revision no.  (85) Of 2000.

Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow....Revisionist.


S/S Gupta General Store, Hapur. ... Opp. Party.            

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 04th, February, 2000 relating to the assessment year 1995-96 under the Central Sales Tax Act.

Dealer/opp. party (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer") was carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of Tooth Paste, General merchandise goods, and Cosmetics etc.  The total turnover was disclosed at Rs.1,79,37,405.84.  During the year under consideration, admittedly dealer sold General Merchandize goods to M/S Lakhi Ram Pramod Kumar, Khari Bawli, Delhi against Bill no.1513 dated 20.2.1996 for Rs.4,45,950.66 while the goods were in transit, Vehicle no. USL-8266, was checked by the Trade Tax Officer (Mobile Squad).  It was found that in bill, tax paid was mentioned and in G. R. present dealer was shown as consignor and "self" as consignee.  The Trade Tax Officer (Mobile Squad) found that the transaction was the inter-State sales and had not been properly recorded in the books of account and seized the goods.  Matter went to the Tribunal.  The Tribunal set aside the seizure of the goods and directed the release of the goods without any security.  In pursuance of the seizure order, penalty under Section 13-A (4) of the Act was levied, which was set aside by the Tribunal in Appeal no. 57 of 1997 vide order dated 22.5.1998.  Claim of the dealer was that the sale was the intra-State sales and not the inter-State sales.  It was submitted that the delivery of the goods was given at Hapur itself and after taking the delivery, the Delhi party had transported the goods to its destination.  It was further submitted that in G. R. by mistake, transporter had shown the dealer as a consignor and "self" as consignee.  In support of his contention, affidavits of purchaser and transporter were filed.  During the course of assessment proceeding, dealer reiterated its submissions made in the seizure proceeding and in the penalty proceeding.  The Assessing Authority, however, not accepted the plea of the dealer and treated the sales as inter-State sales and levied the tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. Dealer filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), which was allowed and the tax levied under the Central Sales Tax Act was deleted. The Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal by the impugned order, rejected the appeal and up held the order of the First Appellate Authority.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the claim of the dealer that the delivery of the goods was given at Hapur and thereafter, it was transported by the purchaser to the Delhi party stand false because in G. R., dealer was shown as a consigner and consignee as "self" which shows that the goods were dispatched by the dealer to Delhi.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.  

The claim of the dealer has been accepted by the Tribunal in seizure proceedings and also in penalty proceedings and by the First Appellate Authority.  In support of the claim, dealer filed affidavits of purchaser and transporter.  The averments made in the affidavits have been accepted by the First Appellate Authority and by the Tribunal and on the basis of these evidences, it has been concluded that the delivery of the goods were given at Hapur and sale was concluded within the State of U. P., and it was the intra-State sales.

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.  The finding of Tribunal cannot said to be based on no material.  Finding of the Tribunal is the finding of fact, which does not require any interference.

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




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.