High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Surajpal Singh Bhatta v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1876 of 1992  RD-AH 399 (23 October 2003)
SALES TAX REVISION NO.1876 OF 1992
M/S Surajpal Singh Bhatta ....Applicant
The Commissioner of Sales Tax ....Opp.Party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
This revision is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 14.10.1992 relating to the assessment year 1986-87.
The applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of bricks. The applicant had disclosed the firing period for 110 days, which was finally fixed by the Tribunal at 162 days. The applicant had disclosed average selling rate at Rs.306.60p. per thousand bricks, which was fixed by Tribunal at Rs.340/- per thousand bricks. Tribunal has estimated the production on the basis of production of 1 lacs bricks in 6.5 days at 25 lacs.
I have heard Sri R.R.Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the previous year, production of the bricks was estimated on the basis of 1lac bricks in 7 days by the Tribunal and there is no change in the capacity of the klin during the year under consideration and therefore, there is no justification in estimating the production of 1 lac bricks in 6.5 days. He further submitted that the enhancement of the firing period and average selling rate are based on no material.
I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below. Tribunal has rejected the disclosed firing period and estimated at 162 days on the basis of material found at the time of various surveys. Tribunal has also fixed average selling rate at Rs.340/- per thousand bricks on the basis of selling rate fixed in other klins and on the basis of one copy found at the time of survey in which the selling rate between Rs.460/- to Rs.470/- was mentioned. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal estimating the firing period and selling rate. So far as the estimate of the production of bricks is concerned, I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. Tribunal in its order referred that in the earlier year, the production was estimated on the basis of production of 1 lac bricks in 7 days and it has not been said that there was any change in the capacity of klin. Therefore, there is no justification in deviating from the earlier years. Tribunal has not given any basis for deviation from earlier years and for estimating the production on the basis of 1 lacs bricks in 6.5 days. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant in this regard is accepted. Tribunal is directed to estimate the production on the basis of production of 1 lac bricks in 7 days and modify the estimated turn over.
In the result, the revision is allowed in part. The order dated 14.10.1992 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to determine the production afresh in the light of the observation made above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.