Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S/S JAI MAA VINDHYAWASINI INT UDYOG versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S/S Jai Maa Vindhyawasini Int Udyog v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 58 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2172 (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.58 OF 2007

S/S Jai Maa Vindhyawasini Int Udyog, Ghazipur.       ....Applicant

Versus

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 "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 08.06.2006 relating to the assessment year 1994-95.

Applicant was carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of bricks. During the year under consideration applicant claimed to have operated the kiln in first season for 16 days only from 02.06.1994 to 17.06.1994. Admittedly books of account have not been produced before the assessing authority, therefore, assessing authority by way of best judgment assessment estimated the firing period from 01.04.1994 to 18.06.1994 for 79 days and estimated the production at 10,72,142 bricks and taxable turn over at Rs.5,38,456/- applying the selling rate at Rs.540/- per thousand bricks.  First appellate authority allowed the appeal in part. First appellate authority has estimated the operation of the kiln at ¾ round and production of bricks at 2.20 lacs bricks. In second appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, Tribunal has reversed the order of the first appellate authority and restored the order of the assessing authority.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

With the consent of both the parties, present revision is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has restored the firing period estimated by the assessing authority without adverting to the findings recorded by the first appellate authority.

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

Perusal of the order of the first appellate authority reveals that no basis has been given for estimating the firing for ¾ round only. Admittedly, at the time of survey dated 08.07.1994 it was told that the firing was stopped 26 days before. Applicant had shown the firing period upto 17.06.1994, which was found to be correct.  However, no reason has been given as to why the firing was started from 02.06.1994. First appellate authority has also mentioned in its order that at the time of survey dated 12.03.1994 start of the firing was told from 10.03.1994. This fact also falsify the firing period disclosed by the applicant. In the absence of any evidence of non-operation of the kiln before 02.06.1994 assessing authority had rightly estimated the firing from 01.04.1994 to 17.06.1994.

In the result, revision has no force and is accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.09.02.2007

R./


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.