Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S SHYAM NARAIN SINGH @ SAMUKA INT BHATTA versus COMMISSINOER OF TRADE TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Shyam Narain Singh @ Samuka Int Bhatta v. Commissinoer Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 57 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 2605 (2 February 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.57 of 2006

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.58 of 2006

M/S Shyam Narain Singh, Rampur.       Applicant

Versus

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

...............

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 15th October, 2005 relating to the assessment years, 1987-88 and 1988-89.

The applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bricks and has not maintained proper books of account in accordance to Section 12 (1) and 12 (2) of the Act. For the assessment year 1987-88, the applicant has only disclosed the firing period in first season and no firing period has been disclosed in the second season. It appears that for the second season, brick kiln owners have boycotted the survey and therefore, no survey was made. However, notice no.8335 dated 19th January, 1988 was issued by the assessing authority to the applicant which was served on 13th February, 1988 to inform whether the production was going on or not. No information was given by the applicant for non-operation of the kiln and, therefore, it has been presumed that in the second season also firing has been carried on. For the assessment year 1988-89 no information was given about non-operation of the kiln despite notice no.5335 dated 29th January, 1988. The order of the assessing authority has been confirmed in first appeal and thereafter in second appeal by the Tribunal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

With the consent of both the parties, present two revisions are disposed of at the stage of admission.

Learned counsel for the applicant is not able to show any error in the order of the Tribunal. He however, submitted that there is no material that the kiln was operated in second season for the assessment year 1987-88 and first season for the assessment year 1988-89 and thus, the estimate of firing period is wholly unjustified. He submitted that out of the claim of bricks used for personal purposes at 2,50,000, benefit of only 1,50,000 was allowed which is not justified.

I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.

I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. Kiln normally runs from November to June. In second season for the assessment year 1987-88, brick kiln owners had boycotted the survey, thus, the survey could not be made. Assessing authority had issued notice no.8335 dated 29th January, 1988 which was served on the applicant on 13th February, 1988 to inform whether the kiln was in operation or not. Despite the aforesaid notice, no information was given by the applicant and, therefore, it has been rightly presumed that the kiln was operated in the second season. On the aforesaid basis, the operation of the kiln in the first season for the assessment year 1988-89 has also been estimated. Thus, the estimate of the firing in second season for the assessment year 1987-88 and first season for the assessment year 1988-89 cannot be said to be arbitrary or without any basis.

So far as claim of bricks in personal use is concerned, Tribunal held that no evidence has been adduced for the use of 2,50,000 bricks and benefit of 1,50,000 bricks was allowed, which has been held, justified. I do not see any reason to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal.

In the result, both the revisions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated.02.02.2006.

VS.


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.