LAKHICHAND RAM KUMAR vs COMMEISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX — C.A. No. 9745 - 9746/2010
Case under Indirect Taxation : Value Added Tax (Vat), State Sales Tax Act Section III-A. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010238792009
Filing Date
12-Aug-2009
Registration No
C.A. No. 9745 - 9746/2010
Diary Number
23879/2009
Order Date
13-Nov-2024
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 06-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.LAKHICHAND RAM KUMAR
Adv. ROHIT AMIT STHALEKAR[P-1]
Respondent(s)
-
1.COMMEISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX
Adv. BHAKTI VARDHAN SINGH[R-1]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Nov-2024
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Nov-2024
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan
-
08-Oct-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Oct-2015
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Oct-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Sep-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Sep-2015
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Sep-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Aug-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Oct-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Nov-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Oct-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Sep-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Sep-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Aug-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-May-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Apr-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Mar-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Jan-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Dec-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Nov-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Sep-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Aug-2009
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 9745 - 9746/2010
Case Summary: Lakhichand Ram Kumar v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed both civil appeals on 13 November 2024, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court found no substantial question of law requiring intervention and ruled that amounts deposited by the appellant while importing coal without Form 31 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 must be treated as a composition fee, not security, in accordance with the 26 September 2002 circular. Key Finding: The circular explicitly states that payments made under its provisions must be accepted as penal composition amounts rather than security deposits. The Court noted this circular's validity had been previously upheld in an Allahabad High Court writ petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts