TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Trade tax revisions dismissed, penalties affirmed under U.P. Trade Tax Act. Allegations rejected, interpretation favors department.</h1> <h3>Bihari Engineering Works Versus Commissioner of Trade Tax, UP., Lucknow</h3> The High Court dismissed the trade tax revisions, affirming penalties imposed under section 4B(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the assessment years ... - Issues:1. Validity of penalty under section 4B(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81.2. Allegation of tampering with original records by a departmental officer.3. Interpretation of the recognition certificate granted under section 4B of the Act.Analysis:1. The dealer, engaged in manufacturing and sale of road equipments, faced penalty under section 4B(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for purchases made against form IIIB. The penalty was imposed by the assessing authority and upheld in subsequent appeals. The dealer contended that the penalty was unjust due to a specific officer's malice, alleging tampering with records. However, the court found no evidence of tampering and noted that no recognition certificate was issued for manufacturing road equipments, thus upholding the penalties imposed.2. The dealer claimed that a departmental officer tampered with the original records, causing deliberate loss and harassment. Despite the dealer's serious complaints against the officer, the court, after perusing the original records and considering the findings of the authorities and Tribunal, found no prima facie evidence of tampering. The court emphasized that even if tampering had occurred, it would not benefit the dealer. The Tribunal also highlighted inconsistencies in the dealer's submissions, leading to a lack of credibility.3. The interpretation of the recognition certificate granted under section 4B of the Act was crucial. While the dealer's application initially mentioned 'road equipments,' it was later altered to specify 'iron and steel' based on departmental advice. The court observed that the recognition certificate did not cover manufacturing and sale of road equipments. The dealer's argument that tampering occurred due to malice was rejected, emphasizing that the records did not support such claims. The court upheld the Tribunal's findings, stating that interference in factual determinations was not warranted in revisional jurisdiction.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the trade tax revisions, affirming the penalties imposed under section 4B(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The court rejected the allegations of tampering with original records, emphasizing the lack of evidence to support such claims. Additionally, the interpretation of the recognition certificate favored the department's stance, highlighting that no certificate was issued for manufacturing and selling road equipments. The court upheld the Tribunal's findings and declined to interfere in the factual determinations made by the lower authorities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
