Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. SURENDRA BRICK FIELD versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S. Surendra Brick Field v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 59 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 5100 (3 March 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.59 of 2000.

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.60 of 2000.

M/S Surendra Brick Field, Besai Tajganj, Agra.       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 9th December, 1999 relating to the assessment years, 1991-92 and 1992-93.

Applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bricks. In the year 1991-92, applicant had disclosed the firing period for 12 days, which has been enhanced to 18 days by the Tribunal. Tribunal had fixed the average selling rate at Rs. 475/- per thousand bricks. For the assessment year 1992-93, applicant had disclosed the firing period at 26 days which has been enhanced by 42 days by the assessing authority and the Tribunal had reduced it to 32 days. Tribunal has fixed the average selling rate at Rs.520/- per thousand bricks.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the enhancement of firing period by 6 days in both the years are without any basis. He further submitted that the average selling rate fixed by the Tribunal is without any basis and without any reason. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that so far as assessment year 1991-92 is concerned, 6 days firing has been enhanced on the basis of the excess stock of coal found at the time of survey dated 19.4.1991. According to him, at the time of survey two trucks of coal was found in stock while as per books of account, stock was only 12.760 MT and keeping in view the difference of one truck of coal, firing period has been enhanced by 6 days. So far as average selling rate is concerned, he submitted that on the basis of other cases, average selling rate has been fixed.

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

So far as assessment year 1991-92 is concerned, I do not find any error in the enhancement of the firing period by 6 days. At the time of survey dated 19.4.1991, two trucks of coal was found while as per stock register only 12.760 MT of coal was found and one truck of coal was found in excess. In the circumstances, enhancement of firing by 6 days stand justified.

So far as assessment year 1992-93 is concerned, no reason whatsoever has been given for the enhancement of firing period by 6 days. The kuchcha bricks, which were found on 1.7.1992, could not be fired in absence of coal. There is no material on record to show that such bricks were fired. In the circumstances, there appears to be no material for enhancement of the firing period by 6 days. So far as average selling rate is concerned, Tribunal has not given any reason and any basis for estimating the average selling rate at Rs.475/- per thousand bricks for the assessment year 1991-92 and Rs. 520/- per thousand bricks for the assessment year, 1992-93. In the circumstances, so as average selling rate is concerned, matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal.

In the result, both the revisions are allowed in part. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal nos. 6 of 1997 and 7 of 1997 afresh in the light of the observations made above expeditiously.

Dated.03.03.2006.

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.