M/S Gaurang Industries Thru. Its Proprietor Nirmala Agarwal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Tax And Reg. Lko And 3 Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 173 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Gaurang Industries Thru. Its Proprietor Nirmala Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Tax And Reg. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mudit Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. connected with 2. Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 174 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Gaurang Industries Munhiganj Lko Thru Proprietor Smt. Nirmala Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt Of Tax And Registration Civil Sectt Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mudit Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 171 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Gaurang Industries Thru. Proprietor Smt. Nirmala Agrawal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Tax And Registration And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mudit Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 172 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Gaurang Industries Munshiganj Lko Thru. Its Properietor Smt. Nirmala Agarwal Respondent :- State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Dppt. Of Tax And Registration Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mudit Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Mudit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel.
The present writ petitions have been filed in respect of the assessment order dated 13.4.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-4, Lucknow for the months of August, September, November and December, 2019, whereby the tax of Rs.7,91,000/-, Rs.3,45,625/-, Rs.1,16,250/- and Rs.45,500/- respectively, penalty of the same amount and interest have been imposed upon the petitioner.
The petitioner had allegedly purchased groundnuts (food- grain) from the dealers named in the impugned orders. On the basis of these purchases made from the dealers, the petitioner claimed input tax credit and withdrew the said input tax credit from the department. During inquiry, it was found that the said traders were not in existence and except for making the alleged supply to the petitioner, these traders did not do any business and, thereafter, the alleged supply made to the petitioner, they withdrew their registration. It was also found that the transport company, which allegedly transported the goods from Gonda to Lucknow, was never in existence.
On the basis of written instructions, Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel submits that groundnut is not produced in district Gonda, whereas the supply of groundnut was allegedly made by the four traders to the petitioner from district Gonda. Therefore, department was of the view that the petitioner had fraudulently withdrew the input tax credit, for which the tax was assessed and the penalty and interest have been imposed on him.
The finding recorded by the two authorities is a finding of fact regarding fraud and, therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact of fraud, which is based on cogent and credible evidence.
In view thereof, I find no substance in these petitions, which are hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 5.5.2023 Rao/- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.