Skip to content


Bhikari Das Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number Sales Tax Revision Nos. 394 and 395 of 1984
Judge
Reported in[1986]62STC206(All)
AppellantBhikari Das
RespondentCommissioner of Sales Tax
Appellant Advocate Matloob Ahmad, Adv.
Respondent Advocate The Standing Counsel
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - it is well-settled that the freight charges are also a part of annual turnover and no exemption can be claimed on the aforesaid ground. 4. in the result the revisions fail and are accordingly dismissed.anshuman singh, j.1. these two revisions have been filed by the assessee under section 11(1) of the u.p. sales tax act (hereinafter referred to as the act) against the judgment passed by the sales tax tribunal, aligarh, dated 19th june, 1984, relating to assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. since both the revisions have been filed against a common judgment they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. the assessee carries on the business of gur. the books of account for the years in question were accepted but the exemptions claimed by the assessee were not allowed by the assessing authority. in the first appeals filed by it however the turnover was reduced but the tribunal dismissed both the second appeals filed by the assessee. feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the.....
Judgment:

Anshuman Singh, J.

1. These two revisions have been filed by the assessee under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Aligarh, dated 19th June, 1984, relating to assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. Since both the revisions have been filed against a common judgment they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The assessee carries on the business of gur. The books of account for the years in question were accepted but the exemptions claimed by the assessee were not allowed by the assessing authority. In the first appeals filed by it however the turnover was reduced but the Tribunal dismissed both the second appeals filed by the assessee. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal the assessee has come to this Court in these revisions.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee has contended that the freight charges, which were not included in the taxable turnover, should not have been included in its turnover inasmuch as it had purchased gur from registered dealer and it was not liable to pay tax on the freight charged. It is well-settled that the freight charges are also a part of annual turnover and no exemption can be claimed on the aforesaid ground. The dharmada, which has been held not to be a part of taxable turnover, has been excluded by the Tribunal. In view of the purchase price defined in Section 2(gg) of the Act the order passed by the Tribunal is wholly justified and does not call for any interference by this Court.

4. In the result the revisions fail and are accordingly dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //