High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raja Ram Yadav, Brick Klin Owner v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 952 of 2000  RD-AH 222 (4 January 2007)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 952 of 2000
Raja Ram Yadav, Brick Kiln Owner, Ballia Applicant
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 4th February, 2000 relating to the assessment year, 1985-86.
The applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of bricks. During the year under consideration, applicant claimed to have operated the kiln for 39 days in first season from 3.5.1985 to 10.6.1985 and in the second season from 1.3.1986 to 14.3.1986 for 14 days in all for 53 days. Assessing authority rejected the books of account and estimated the firing period at 89 days. In first appeal, the firing period was reduced to 75 days. Against the order of the first appellate authority, applicant as well as Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the applicant and has partly allowed the appeal of the Commissioner of Trade Tax. Tribunal has restored the firing period estimated by the assessing authority at 89 days.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Best judgment assessment is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the information for start of the firing period from 3.5.1985 was given on 6.5.1985, which is not in dispute. He submitted that in absence of any material, the estimate of the firing period from 1.4.1985 in the first season is unjustified.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that at the time of survey dated 13.5.1985 half of the kiln was found filled with pucca bricks and there were 8 to 9 lacs pucca bricks in stock outside the kiln thus the firing period disclosed by the applicant was not correct.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.
The facts mentioned in the survey report dated13.5.1985 is referred in the assessment order, which shows that the person concerned informed that the firing was started from 10-15th March, but firing was closed in between. Specific date of the closure of the firing was not told. However, it was found that half of the kiln was filled with pucca bricks and there were stock of 8-9 lacs bricks. The aforesaid fact shows that the firing period disclosed by the applicant was not correct. The question of the estimate of the firing period is question of fact. The estimate of the firing period on the basis of the material on record cannot be said to be arbitrary and without any basis. In the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is upheld.
In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.