RAPTI COMMISSION AGENCY Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(SC)-2006-8-2
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on August 02,2006

RAPTI COMMISSION AGENCY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2006-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN GOPI VS. KUNJU RAMAN UTHAMAN [LAWS(KER)-2011-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
H DAWOOD VS. L THANGARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2007-8-309] [REFERRED TO]
H DAWOOD VS. L THANGARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-68] [REFERRED TO]
JAIHIND PROJECTS LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2007-5-83] [REFERRED TO]
GAMMON INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-3-97] [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENI ENGICONS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-7-65] [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-10-223] [REFERRED TO]
C K RAMA MURTHY VS. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(KAR)-2015-6-272] [REFERRED TO]
V.A. TECH WABAG LTD. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), [LAWS(KER)-2007-11-97] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKIL AHMAD AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-130] [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKIL AHMAD AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-207] [REFERRED TO]
G. KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-1-184] [REFERRED TO]
COASTAL PROJECTS LTD. VS. STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2012-11-55] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL MAJEED KHAN S/O LATE HABIB KHAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR WITH [LAWS(PAT)-2010-5-215] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PRAKASH PAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-89] [REFERRED TO]
CAIRN INDIA HOLDING LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(GJH)-2019-6-214] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court repelling the challenge to constitutional validity of Section 8-E of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short the 'Act'). By the impugned judgment several writ petitions involving identical challenge were disposed of. Aforesaid Section 8-E of the Act was inserted by Section 7 of the U.P. Act No. 11 of 2001.
(2.)A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.
(3.)Appellant filed the writ petition, inter alia, with following stands:-
Appellant is an agent of principals situated outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, who for the sake of convenience are described as 'Ex-U.P. Principals'. Appellant purchased Mentha Oil for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principals and dispatched them to the said principals on the basis of agreements entered into. One consignment of Mentha Oil was detained by the Trade Tax officer, Mobile Squad, Jhansi and the driver was informed by a notice that the detention was made because the appellant had not deducted the tax from the sellers/agriculturists and had not deposited the same in terms of Section 8-E of the Act. Appellant sent a reply on 11.7.2001 stating that the purchase of Mentha Oil was for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principals from the agriculturists and all the documents accompanying the consignment clearly established this fact. When the authority insisted on deposit of the tax in terms of Section 8-E of the Act the Writ Petition was filed. Because similar detentions were made in case of others, writ petitions were filed challenging constitutional validity of Section 8-E of the Act. The primary challenge was that the seller was not a "dealer" as defined in the Act i.e. Section 2(c). Reference was made to proviso to the provision in this regard. Further the transactions in question being inter-state in character the State Government did not have legislative competence to provide for deduction of tax in respect of such transactions. The respondents-State and its functionaries who were respondents in the writ petition supported the constitutional validity of the impugned provision.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.