2008 (8) TMI 857

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessment year 1993-94. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The dealer-opposite party is carrying on the business of coal. The account books of the dealer were rejected by the assessing officer. The said order was modified partly in appeal by the first appellate authority. In further appeal, the Tribunal took the view that a sum of Rs. 34,93,302.03 which represents the freight amount....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d freight from the amount of taxable turnover of the assessee? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal has examined the case in the light of observation of the honourable Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Revision No. 340 of 1994 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sharma Coal Company Jalandhari, Azamgarh dated December 14, 1998) and has correctly held th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quarely covered by the decisions of this court in Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Sunil Kumar Coal Agent, Gorakhpur [2003] UPTC 1036, Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Ramapati Tewari Jainath Tewari [2005] UPTC 76 and Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Sharma Coal Co., Azamgarh [2008] 16 VST 517(App); [2005] UPTC 1165 wherein it has been held that the dealer like the present dealer is not a coal agent but is a ....