Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S/S RANGJI DHARAM NATH INT BHANDAR versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S/S Rangji Dharam Nath Int Bhandar v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 579 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 950 (15 January 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.  (579) of 2006.

S/S Rangji Dharm NathInt Bhandar, Ghazipur ... 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 ''Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 26.10.2005 relating to the assessment year 1992-93.

Applicant had operated two Brick Kilns one situated at Basuchak for the period 20.1.1993 to 16.3.1993 and second situated at Village Khidirpur for the period 01.2.1993 to 20.3.1993 for 56 days and 48 days respectively.  Both the Kilns were under the Compounding Scheme in the first season, therefore, the assessment is confined to the second season only.  Admittedly, the applicant had not maintained the proper books of account and the Assessing Authority by way of best judgment assessment, estimated the firing period at 112 days comprising 62 days in Basuchak Kiln and 50 days at Khidirpur Kiln and estimated the production on the basis of production of 1 Lacs bricks in 7 days. The First Appellate Authority, allowed the appeal and declared the applicant non taxable the turnover being estimated at Rs.96,000/- below exemption limit. The Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed the appeal and restored the order of the Assessing Authority.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the estimate of firing period is arbitrary.  He further submitted that the estimate of production on the basis of 1 Lacs bricks in 7 days is unjustified.  He filed a Supplementary affidavit annexing the copy of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judl.), Sales Tax, Varanasi in Appeal no. 318 of 1992 for the assessment year 1987-88, in which, Appellate Authority has estimated the production on the basis of production at 1 Lacs bricks in 8 days.  Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that for the year under consideration also, the production should be estimated on the basis of production of one Lacs bricks in 8 days.  

I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant.  The best judgment assessment is not in dispute.  The firing period disclosed by the applicant were found in correct at the time of survey dated 23.7.1993 and 12.3.1993 made at Basuchak and Khidirpur Kilns respectively.  The applicant had not disclosed the capacity of Kilns.  No reliance can be placed on the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judl.), Sales Tax in appeal no. 318 of 1992 for the assessment year 1987-88.  Perusal of Appellate order shows that it was in the case of S/S Rangji Dharmnath Int Bhatta while the present assessee is S/S Rangji Dharm Nath Int Bhandar.  In the present case there were two Kilns while the Appellate order for the assessment year 1987-88 reveals that it was the case of one Kiln.  There is nothing to suggest that the Kiln, which was operated in the assessment year 1987-88 has also been operated in the year under consideration.  The Appellate order for the assessment year 1987-88 has not been placed before any of the authority, though; it was available with the applicant.  In the circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judl.), Sales Tax for the assessment year 1987-88.  In the circumstances, the revision is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

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

Dt:15.01.2007.

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.