Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S/S INT NIRMATA SAMINI, KRAUDI, VARANASI versus THE COMMISSIOENR, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S/S Int Nirmata Samini, Kraudi, Varanasi v. The Commissioenr, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 98 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4498 (24 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.98 of 2006

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.99 of 2006

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.100 of 2006

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.101 of 2006

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.102 of 2006

S/S Int Nirmata Samiti, Kraudi, Varanasi.       Applicant

Versus

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

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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present five revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 15th September, 2005 relating to the assessment years, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1998-99.

The applicant claimed to be a society and engaged in the business of coal. It is claimed that the coal had been purchased for the distribution to its members only who were involved in the manufacturing of bricks. Coal had been purchased from collieries situated outside the State of U.P. and had been imported against declaration form as contemplated under section 28-A of the Act. However, on account of non-maintenance of proper books of account, disclosed turnover have been rejected and the turnover has been estimated by way of best judgment assessment. For the assessment year 1993-94, turnover has been estimated taking the selling rate at Rs.1450/- on the basis of the selling rate estimated in the previous year at Rs.1350/-. Likewise, in the other years also, on the basis of the selling rate the turnover has been estimated. Applicant filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Varanasi. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Varanasi allowed the appeals in part relating to the assessment years, 1993-94 to 1996-97 and dismissed the appeal for the assessment year 1998-99. Against the order of the first appellate authority, applicant as well as Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeals of the applicant and allowed the appeals of the Commissioner of Trade Tax in part relating to the assessment years, 1993-94 to 1996-97. For the assessment year 1993-94, Tribunal has fixed the turnover at Rs.1,57,00,000/-, for the assessment year 1994-95 at Rs. 1,80,00,000/-, for the assessment year 1995-96 at Rs.1,81,00,000/-, for the assessment year 1996-96 at Rs.1,08,00,000/- and for the assessment year 1998-99 at Rs.3,03,00,000/-.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the assessing authority has estimated the turnover on the basis of the estimated selling rate which has been estimated on the basis of the estimated selling rate in the year 1992-93. He submitted that in the assessment year 1992-93, in appeal, the selling rate fixed by the assessing authority has not been approved and the first appellate authority estimated the turnover on the basis of the value of the coal, freight, expenses and profit. Copy of the order of the first appellate authority dated 8.8.1996 for the assessment year 1992-93 has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit. He submitted that the estimate of the turnover by the first appellate authority is also on the basis of the value of the coal, freight, expenses and profit while the Tribunal has estimated the turnover without any basis. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

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

In my view, estimate of the turnover by the Tribunal is without any basis. No reason has been given for fixing the turnover. The selling rate fixed by the assessing authority on the basis of the assessment order for the assessment year 1992-93 cannot be sustained because the assessment order for the assessment year 1992-93 has not been approved in appeal. Thus, for fixing the turnover for the year under consideration, appellate orders for the assessment year 1992-93 should be considered. In this view of the matter, order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh. It will be open to the applicant to raise any other point in support of his claim relating to the estimate of turnover.

In the result, all the five revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh in the light of the observations made above.

Dated.24.02.2006.

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.