Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHIV RAJ SINGH YOGESH KUMAR versus THE SALES TAX COMMISIONER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shiv Raj Singh Yogesh Kumar v. The Sales Tax Commisioner - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 633 of 1994 [2003] RD-AH 488 (2 December 2003)

 

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.55

SALES TAX REVISION NO.633 OF 1994

Shiv Raj Singh Yogesh Kumar ....Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Opp.Party

............

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

This revision is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 26.02.1994 relating to the assessment year 1981-82.

Applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bricks. Applicant claimed to have maintained books of account in the regular course of business and according to which, disclosed turn over at Rs.3,96,272/-. Firing period disclosed was 114 days. Assessing Authority rejected the books of account and estimated turn over at Rs.7,29,000/-. Assessing Authority has enhanced firing period from 114 days to 126 days and estimated production at 25,20,000 bricks and after applying average selling rate at Rs.270/- per thousand bricks estimated the turn over.  First Appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. Applicant filed second appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal has remanded back the case to the assessing officer for fresh assessment. Tribunal observed that there was a difference in information given for closure and the details disclosed and, therefore, for the estimate of firing period enquiry and re-examination is required. Tribunal further observed that capacity of the klin was about 10 lacs. Therefore, per day production should be 27,000 bricks while assessing authority estimated per day production at 20,000 bricks.

Heard Sri R.R.Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri U.K.Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that entire material was on record, which has also been dealt with by the assessing authority and on the basis of material on record, Tribunal should have decided the appeal and there was no justification for remanding back the case. Further submitted that it appears that Tribunal has remanded back the case to provide fresh inning with the view to further enhance the turn over as against turn over estimated by assessing authority though no appeal was filed by Commissioner of Sales Tax. He submitted that Tribunal should have decided the appeal of the applicant within purview of the enhancement made by assessing authority.  

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.

So far as firing period is concerned, assessing authority considered all the surveys and material on record. Therefore, in my view, no further investigation in the matter is required. All the materials are available on record and on the basis of which firing period can be adjudicated. So far as estimate of per day production is concerned, material are available on record and on the basis of such material matter can be adjudicated.

In this view of the matter, since all the material are available on record on the basis of which all the issues involved in the appeal can be decided, there is no need of remanding back the case to the assessing officer. It is true that Tribunal has power to remand the case to the assessing authority but such power should be exercised sparingly in a situation where any investigation or enquiry is required to be made. If materials are already available on record and no further enquiry is required, matter should not normally be remanded back to the assessing authority.  Endeavor should be to decide the matter finally to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. In the circumstances, in my opinion, remand of the case to the assessing authority is not justified.

In the result, revision is allowed. Order of Tribunal dated 26.02.1994 is set aside and Tribunal is directed to decide appeal no.307/88 for the assessment year 1981-82 afresh. Since the matter is quite old, Tribunal is further directed to decide the appeal expeditiously.

Dt.02.12.2003

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.