Allahabad High Court
Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. ... vs M/S Abdulla Traders on 4 April, 2022
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 398 of 2016 Revisionist :- Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow Opposite Party :- M/S Abdulla Traders Counsel for Revisionist :- S. C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
In view of office report dated 30.8.2016, the service upon opposite party is deemed sufficient.
Heard Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist. None appears on behalf of opposite party.
The present revision has been filed against the order dated 24.10.2010 passed in Second Appeal No. 34 of 2008 and 107 of 2008 (A.Y. 2005-06) in which the following question of law has been framed:-
"(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the first purchase made by the opposite party dealer are not liable to tax under Section 3 D (1) as the first purchases of the dealer?
(ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in deleting the amount of tax levied on the first purchase of wheat inasmuch as the dealer has failed to prove that the goods have been dispatched in pursuance of the order passed by Ex.U.P. principal ?"
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the revisionist and accepted the contention of the dealer without applying its mind. The dealer has failed to show that the goods have been moved for and on behalf of Ex-UP principal, therefore the dealer is liable to pay the tax for the said purchase.
The Court has perused the record.
In view of the findings of fact recorded by the two authorities below after detailed discussion as well as verifying the materials on record, it is evident that the authorities have rightly come to the conclusion that the goods have been moved for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. principal and no liability can be fixed on central sale.
In view of above, no interference is called for by this Court.
The revision is dismissed.
The question of law is answered accordingly.
Order Date :- 4.4.2022 Rahul Dwivedi/-