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.
11 of 2001.
By the impugned judgment several writ petitions involving identical challenge were disposed of.
When the authority insisted on deposit of the tax in terms of Section 8 E of the Act the Writ Petition was filed.
A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.
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 companysignment clearly established this fact.
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 companyvenience are described as Ex U.P. Principals.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court repelling the challenge to companystitutional validity of Section 8 E of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 in short the Act .
One companysignment of Mentha Oil was detained by the Trade Tax officer, Mobile Squad, Jhansi and the driver was informed by a numberice that the detention was made because the appellant had number deducted the tax from the sellers agriculturists and had number deposited the same in terms of Section 8 E of the Act.
