Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Brahma Dev Singh Shanti Singh Int Bhatta, Jaunpur v. Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lko. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1069 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 2148 (9 February 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).


Court no. 22

Trade Tax Revision no.  1069 of  2000.

M/S  Brahma Dev Singh Shakti Singh,Jaunpur...      Revisionist. Vs

Commissioner of  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 the ''Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 17.08.2000 relating to the assessment year 1985-86.

During the year under consideration, applicant had operated the Kiln from 05.1.1986 to 09.2.1986 and from 01.03.1986 to 15.03.1986 for 54 days.  The Assessing Authority had enhanced the firing period to 60 days.  The First Appellate Authority has accepted the disclosed firing period.  However, in appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, the Tribunal has held the firing period at 60 days.  Out of the total production, applicant claimed to have used 1,10,000 bricks for its personal purposes.  Claim of the applicant has been rejected in absence of any evidence.  

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that there was no basis for estimating the firing period at 60 days.  He submitted that without any basis only partial closure of firing between 9.2.1986 to 1.3.1986 has been accepted.  He further submitted that in support of the claim of 1,10,000 bricks being used for its personal purposes, a Certificate of Gram Pradhan was filed.  Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant in part.  Once the closure of firing between 09.2.1986 to 1.3.1986 had been accepted, there appears to be no reason to accept only for 10 days.  The Tribunal has not given any reason for estimating the firing period at 60 days and for setting aside the finding recorded by the First Appellate Authority.  In this view of the matter, the firing period disclosed by the applicant is liable to be accepted.

So far as claim of 1,10,000 bricks being used for personal purposes, no evidence has been adduced by the applicant.  Certificate of Gram Pradhan cannot be said to be an evidence to support the claim.  Gram Pradhan is not an Expert to certify the use of 1,10,000 bricks for personal purposes.  In this view of the matter, rejection of claim of 1,10,000 bricks for personal purposes, cannot be said to be unjustified.

In the result, revision is allowed in part.  Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to redetermine the production and the turnover after taking the firing at 54 days disclosed by the applicant.



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


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 |

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