Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S SHIV BRICKS YDYOG versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAS, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Shiv Bricks Ydyog v. Commissioner Of Trade Tas, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 50 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 2247 (30 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.50 OF 2006

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.51 OF 2006

M/s Shiv Bricks Udyog. ....Applicant

Versus

Commissioner of Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow.   .Opp.party

***************

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These two revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 27.08.2005 relating to the assessment years 2000-01 and 01-02.

Applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of bricks. For the assessment year 2000-01, applicant's disclosed firing period at 14.5 days has been accepted by the Tribunal. Applicant had disclosed the closing stock at 2,65,000 bricks comprising of 98000 bricks outside the kiln and 1,67,000 bricks inside the kiln. It was claimed that during the year, 2,65,000 bricks were baked and out of which 98,000 bricks were brought out, which remained in stock and there was no sale of bricks. Tribunal has estimated the nikasi of  bricks at 1 lac bricks and held that such bricks have been sold during the year under consideration. For the assessment year 2001-02 Tribunal has estimated the firing period at 70 days and the production at 11,88,650 bricks.  Tribunal has not allowed the benefit of the bricks given towards compensation.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that 2,65,000 bricks was in closing stock, which consisting of 98000 bricks outside the kiln and 1,67,000 bricks inside the kiln. He submitted that in subsequent year same opening stock has been considered and included in the total bricks available for sale. Thus, he submitted that the levy of tax on 1 lac bricks in the assessment year 2000-01 is arbitrary. For the assessment year 2001-02 learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in respect of bricks given towards compensation, necessary evidences were adduced but such evidences have not been considered by the Tribunal and the claim has been rejected. Learned Standing counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.

I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. It appears that the entire closing stock at 2,65,000 bricks have been considered in the subsequent year 2001-02 without giving benefit of the bricks assessed in the assessment year 2000-01. In this view of the matter, prima-facie it appears that tax on 1 lac bricks assessed in assessment year 2000-01 is double taxation. Tribunal is directed to look into the matter afresh. Tribunal may also consider that when the firing period has been accepted and in as much as the purchase of coal were made form the registered dealer, there is no occasion to estimate the turn over of purchase of coal from unregistered dealer for the purpose of levy of tax under section 3-AAAA of the Act.

For the assessment year 2000-01 applicant claimed to have given bricks towards compensation and in support of the claim, copy of the agreement, challan, certificate of Gram Pradhan etc. were furnished. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that such evidences have not been considered at all and the claim has been rejected. In my opinion, order of the Tribunal is vitiated, in asmuch as the evidences adduced by the applicant has not been considered. Thus, matter requires reconsideration in this regard.

In the result, both the revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide both the appeals afresh.

Dt.30.01.2006

R./


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.