Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S PAWAN GRAMODYOG SEWA versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Pawan Gramodyog Sewa v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 57 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2151 (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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 22

Trade Tax Revision no.  57 of  2007.

M/S  Pawan Gramodyog Sewa, Fatehpur...      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 15.11.2006 relating to the assessment year 2002-2003.

Applicant was involved in the business of manufacture and sales of bricks.  During the year under consideration, assessment is only for the period 1.4.2002 to 30.9.2002.  Thereafter in the second season, Kiln was under the Compounding Scheme.  During the aforesaid period, applicant had disclosed the firing period from 1.4.2002 to 23.4.2002 for 23 days.  The Assessing Authority had enhanced the firing period to 54 days.  The Tribunal has estimated the firing period at 40 days.  Though, the Assessing Authority had estimated the opening stock of bricks at 8 Lacs on the basis of the assessment order for the assessment year 2001-02, but the Tribunal has taken the opening balance at 13,05,000 bricks on the basis of its own order for the assessment year 2001-02, in which, closing stock at 13,05,000 bricks was left.  Claim of the applicant for  closing stock of 15.30 Lacs bricks has not been accepted and the closing stock was taken at 12.30 Lacs bricks on the ground that at the time of survey dated 05.9.2002, 8 Ghati Pakki bricks was found and there was a stock of 5.5 Lacs bricks outside the Kiln, therefore, it was held that it was not possible that there was a stock of 15.30 Lacs bricks.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that no defect was found in the books of account, still the books of account had been rejected and the best judgment assessment was made.  He submitted that there was no basis for  estimating the firing period at 40 days.  He further submitted that the closing stock had been illegally taken at 12.30 Lacs bricks while the closing stock was at 15.30 Lacs bricks.  He further submitted that at the time of survey dated 05.09.2002, the brother of the applicant Sri Jitendra Bahadur Singh was present with whom the applicant was not having goods relationship, thus, the survey report was not correct and in this regard, an objection was filed by the applicant on 11.9.2002.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that at the time of survey dated 5.9.2002, brother of the applicant who was present told that in this season 2 ½ - 2 ¾  round Kiln was operated and the 8 Ghati of Kiln was found filled with Pakki bricks and 5.5 Lacs Pakki bricks was found outside the Kiln, therefore, the firing period disclosed by the applicant at 23 days was patently incorrect.  He further submitted that no evidence had been adduced to show that the Proprietor of the applicant had bad relationship with his brother Sri Jitendra Bahadur Singh.  He submitted that having regard to the stocks found at the time of survey dated 5.9.2002, closing stock at 15.30 Lacs bricks has rightly not been accepted.

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

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.  At the time of survey dated 5.9.2002, the brother of the applicant Sri Jitendra Bahadur Singh was present.  There is no material to show that the applicant had bad relationship with Sri Jitendra Bahadur Singh.  It was told that in this season, Kiln was operated for 2 ½ - 2 ¾  round.    The 8 Ghati of Kiln was found filled with Pakki bricks and there was a stock of 5.5 Lacs bricks outside the Kiln.  In this view of the matter, the firing period had rightly been rejected.  Normally, the Kiln operates from the month of January to June.  No reason has been given as to why the Kiln was operated for 23 days only.  In the circumstances, the estimate of firing period for 40 days cannot be said to be arbitrary and without any basis.

So far as the closing stock is concerned, the Tribunal has disputed the closing stock of 15.30 Lacs bricks on the basis of stock found outside the kiln at 5.5 Lacs bricks thus, unless the capacity of Kiln was more than 10 Lacs, there  could not be closing stock of Pakki bricks at 15.30 Lacs.  The capacity of the Kiln was claimed to be much less than 10 Lacs, therefore, the closing stock of bricks has rightly been rejected.  The finding of the Tribunal in this regard is the finding of fact.  No interference is called for.

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

Dt:09.02.2007.

MZ/-


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.