Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus M/S LALIT OIL

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. M/S Lalit Oil - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 2316 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 15666 (8 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no.22

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.2316 of 2004

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

Versus

M/S Lalit Oil Co., Agra.                                      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 26th April, 2004 relating to the assessment year, 1996-97 by which the Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax.

Applicant was carrying on the business of Lubricant oil. In the original assessment order, lubricant oil was assessed to tax at the rate of 10 percent under notification no. ST-II-5784/X-10 (1)-80-U.P. Act 15/48-Order-81, dated 7.9.1981 under the entry "All kinds of lubricants". Assessing authority passed the order under section 21 of the Act and levied the tax on the turnover of lubricant oil at the rate of 15 percent treating it covered under Notification no. 2575 dated 20.07.1994. First appeal filed by the dealer was allowed. Appellate authority held that the assessing authority has not given any reason that how the lubricant is covered under entry "77" of Notification No.2575 dated 20.07.1994, while there was a specific notification No.ST-II-5784/X-10 (1)-80-U.P. Act 15/48-Order-81, dated 7.9.1981 for the lubricant and, accordingly, deleted the tax. The order of the first appellate authority has been upheld in appeal.

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. The relevant entry "77" of Notification No.TT-2-2573/XI-7 (42)/86-U.P. Act-15/48-Order-94 dated 18.07.1994 reads as follows:

"iSVªksfy;e vk/kkfjr rsy tks bl fu0 ;k vk0 12 izfr'kr

vuqlwph dh fdlh vU; izfof"V

;k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ"""

fdlh vU; foKfIr ds vUrxZr u

vkrs gksaA

The Notification No.TT-2-2573/XI-7 (42)/86-U.P. Act-15/48-Order-94 dated 18.07.1994 clearly excludes the items which are notified elsewhere. Lublicant is notified under the Notification no. ST-II-5784/X-10 (1)-80-U.P. Act 15/48-Order-81, dated 7.9.198, therefore, there was no justification in levying the tax under the entry "77" of Notification No.TT-2-2573/XI-7 (42)/86-U.P. Act-15/48-Order-94 dated 18.07.1994.

For the reasons stated above, the order of the Tribunal is, accordingly, upheld.

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

Dated.08.09.2006.

VS.


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.