w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Moti Lal Munnu Lal v/s The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. At Lucknow


Company & Directors' Information:- I TRADE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120TN1999PLC043813

Company & Directors' Information:- TRADE INDIA LTD [Active] CIN = U51909PB1982PLC004822

Company & Directors' Information:- R P TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909AS1999PTC005646

Company & Directors' Information:- A R TRADE IN PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909AS1999PTC005710

Company & Directors' Information:- S 3 M TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2013PTC193812

Company & Directors' Information:- MOTI PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1961PTC003372

Company & Directors' Information:- C TRADE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900KA2008PTC045372

Company & Directors' Information:- MOTI PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120TN1943PTC001460

Company & Directors' Information:- I-W TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93030MH2012PTC233832

Company & Directors' Information:- U M TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67190MH2011PTC224523

    Trade Tax Revision No. 110 of 2008

    Decided On, 04 December 2017

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

    For the Applicant: Ved Prakash Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: A.C. Tripathi, C.S.C.



Judgment Text

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The only questions which were pressed at the time of hearing were question Nos. 2 and 3. Insofar as question No. 3 is concerned the same stands answered in favour of the assessee on the basis of the decision of the Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s H.M. Industries [1980 UPTC 334].

3. Insofar as the question No. 2 is concerned, the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist was that the assessee was not the manufacturer of the Sewai machine and this work was being outsourced. This, in the considered view of the Court, would not be sufficient to recognise the assessee as not being a manufacturer under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. A reading of the definition of the expressions "manufacture" and "manufacturer" clearly establishes that any person who effects the first sale of the product in the State of U.P. has been defined to be included in the expression "manufacturer". The revisionist does not deny that the first sale of the product was effected by it. In view thereof, question No. 2 is answered against the assessee.
<

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

br />4. The Court finds no ground warranting interference with the order of the Tribunal. The revision is accordingly dismissed.
O R