Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S SINGH BRICK WORKS, LAXMANIYA BHADOHI, SRI AJAY P. SINGH versus COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Singh Brick Works, Laxmaniya Bhadohi, Sri Ajay P. Singh v. Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 666 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 14513 (27 August 2007)

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 AT ALLAHABAD

Court no.22

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 666 of 2002.

M/S Singh Brick Works, Bhadohi Applicant

Versus

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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 27th December, 2000 relating to the assessment year, 1985-86.

The applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of bricks. The applicant has disclosed the firing period in the first season at 15 days and in second season at 20 days, in all 35 days. The assessing authority has estimated the firing period at 88 days, which has been reduced to 54 days by the first appellate authority. Tribunal has estimated at 80 days. The selling rate has been estimated by the assessing authority at Rs. 275/- per thousand bricks. First appellate authority has estimated at Rs.225/- per thousand bricks and the Tribunal has estimated at Rs. 275/- per thousand bricks.

Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the estimate of the firing period and the selling rate is arbitrary and based on no material. 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.

Admittedly the applicant has not maintained any books of account in support of the claim of firing period for 35 days. There were four surveys during the year under consideration. At the time of survey dated 25.08.1985, the kiln was found in operation and other surveys were made on 27.01.1986, 13.03.1986 and 19.06.1986. Having regard to the material found at the time of surveys, firing period has been fixed at 80 days. The selling rate at Rs.275/- per thousand bricks has been fixed by way of best judgment assessment. Learned Counsel for the applicant is not able to place any material to show that the selling rate at Rs.275/- per thousand bricks is arbitrary. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact. No question of law is involved in the present revision.

In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated.27.08.2007.

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.