Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S/S SRI RAM BRICKS FIELD versus COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S/S Sri Ram Bricks Field v. Commissioner Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 83 of 2000 [2004] RD-AH 1675 (10 December 2004)

 

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

Trade Tax Revision no. (83) of 2000.

S/S Sriram Bricks Field, Raebareli.     . ... Revisionist.

Vs

Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ...Revisionist.

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 22.1.2000 relating to assessment year 1996-97.

Applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bricks.  During the year under consideration, it was claimed that the Kiln was not operated in the second season, which had been accepted.  There was a stock of 5,00,000 bricks, which was claimed to have been distributed amongst the partners and no sale was made.  Assessing Authority had not accepted the claim and levied tax on the entire 5,00,000 bricks during the year under consideration and estimated the turnover at Rs.5,00,000.  First appeal filed by the dealer was rejected.  Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed in part.  Tribunal up held the view of authorities below and rejected the claim of distribution of 5,00,000 bricks amongst the partners, but has reduced the turnover 3,75,000 bricks.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that before the Assessing Authority, a certificate of Grame Pradhan was filed, in which, it was certified that bricks were distributed amongst the partners and therefore, rejection of claim is unjustified.  I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant.  Perusal of assessment order shows that the Assessing Authority had rejected the claim on the ground that at one stage, applicant filed a certificate of Grame Pradhan about the distribution of 2,00,000 bricks and subsequently claim was made for 5 Lacs.  Assessing Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority  held that no reason as has been given to how the bricks have been distributed and how they have been used by the partners and accordingly claim had been rejected.  Tribunal up held the order of authorities below and before this Court also applicant neither filed certificate nor any evidence to show that how 5,00,000 bricks have been distributed amongst the partners.  In the circumstances, I not find any force in the present revision.

In the result, revision fails and is dismissed.

Dt:10.12.2004.

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.