LexCOMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. versus M/S. J.U. PESTICIDES & CHEMICAL P. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 431
f
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, {J.P.
A
\/.
M/S. J.U. PESTICIDES & CHEMICAL P. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 1603 of 2008),
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
~ .
U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948: s.11 - Concurrent findings of
fact by departmental authorities and Tribunal - High Court
reversed the findings - Correctness of - Held: Not correct - c
High Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with order of
Tribunal only on question of' law, which js required to be
'
precisely stated and formulated.
The Departmental authorities and Tribunal recorded
..
a categorical finding that on a physical verification D
-.·
although 99 drums of agrochemicals as per goods receipt
,
_,
were found in the vehicle, but on comparing these goods
with the goods mentioned in the Invoice and Delivery
Note, different goods were also found in the vehicle. The
description of the goods as mentioned in the Trip Sheets E
were found not to be matching with those goods. The
High Court allowed the revision.
In appeal to this court, appellant contended that the
•
scope of interference in a proceeding under the U.P. Trade
Tax Act, 1948 is very limited and that High Court can only F
interfere in the question of law and should not normally
interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court ought not to have G
interfered with the orders of the departmental authorities
•
and the Tribunal, that too on the question of appreciation
_,,
of the factual aspects. The High Court has not analyzed
as to how the conclusions of the Tribunal suffer from any
431
H
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R
~
A infirmity. If fact finding authority comes to certain
conclusions honestly and bonafide the mere fact that
Court may have a different perspective of that question,
cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding even
though another view may be possible. Considering the
B limited jurisdiction exercisable under s.11 of the U.P.
Trade Tax Act, 1948 such a course is not available.
[Para 12] [437-B, C, D]
• •
Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P v. Kumaon Tractors &
Motors (2002) 9 SCC 379 - relied on.
c
1.2 S.11 of the Act confers limited jurisdiction to
interfere with the order of the Tribunal only on the question
of law, which is required to be precisely stated and
formulated. In the instant case, even that has not been
D done. The High Court's order, which is clearly
indefensible, is set aside. [Para 12, 13] [437-D, E]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1603
of 2008.
E
From the final Judgment and Order dated 10/10/2006 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in TTR No. 694/2006.
Shail Kumar Dwivedi, A.A.G., Vibha Dwivedi, Gunnam
Venkateswara Rao. Vishwajeet Singh and Vandana Mishra for
the Appellant.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order
dated 10. 10.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the
G Allahabad High Court in Trade Tax Revision No. 694 of 2006.
By the impugned order the learned Single Judge allowed the
Revision Petition filed under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh
A
~ •
Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short the 'Act') and directed release
of certain goods which were seized without security and
H Rs.20,000/- was imposed as costs.
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. v. MIS. JU.
433
PESTICIDES & CHEMICAL P. LTD. [PASAYAT, J.]
3. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:
A
The Check Post Officer posted at the Entry Check Post
Tamkuhiraj, District Deoria, in the State of Uttar Pradesh issued
transit Pass No.1006 dated 13.6.2005 in respect of the goods
carried in Truck No. HR-55A-4687. The same was presented
B
before the Check Post Officer, Exit Check Post, Transport
. -.
Nagar, Ghaziabad on 15.6.2005. As per Transit Pass, 99 drums
of Agro Chemicals valued at Rs.59,87,142.85 were recorded.
These goods were shown to have been transported from Kapru
in Assam to Bhatinda in the State of Punjab. A physical
verification of the goods loaded in the truck was carried out by c
the Check Post Officer posted at the Exit Check Post and it
was found that the goods relatable to the 99 drums of Agro
Chemicals were different from those covered by the Transit Pass
No. 1006. The officer posted at the check post issued show
....
cause notice No. 553 dated 15.6.2005. AccordingExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.