Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, could interfere with concurrent findings of fact by reappreciating the evidence and holding that the assessee was not a dealer.
Analysis: The authorities below had recorded a factual finding that the assessee was a dealer on the basis of its books of account, bills issued by it and Form 'C' furnished by it. The High Court, instead of confining itself to the precise question of law permissible under Section 11, reassessed the documentary material and relied on certificates to upset the factual conclusion. Such interference was beyond the limited revisional jurisdiction contemplated by the provision, which permits interference only on a specifically formulated question of law.
Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unwarranted and the finding that the assessee was a dealer could not be disturbed in revision.
Final Conclusion: The orders of the Tribunal and the assessing authorities were restored, and the challenge by the Revenue succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless a precisely formulated question of law arises.