Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Jain Sweets House v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 34 of 1995 [2004] RD-AH 461 (5 August 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).


Court no. 55

Trade Tax Revision no. 34 of 1995.

M/Sjain Sweet House, Ghaziabad                     .....................  Revisionist.


Commissioner of Trade Tax U. P.     Lucknow......................Respondent.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 31.10.1994 relating to the assessment years 1992-93.

Applicant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sales of Sweet Meat, Namkeen and disclosed a total and taxable turnover at Rs.2,17,663.90 Paise and Rs.1,72,063.90 Paise.  Assessing Authority rejected the disclosed turnover and estimated taxable turnover at Rs.17,00,000/- which was reduced to Rs.8,00,000/- by the First Appellate Authority.  Tribunal further allowed the appeal in part and estimated the taxable turnover at Rs.6,75,000/-.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that looking to the previous years assessment and looking to the fact that survey dated 6.10.1992 was made at the time of Diwali Festival, estimated the taxable turnover at Rs.6,75,000/- is arbitrary.  Learned Standing Counsel supported the orders passed by the Tribunal.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  During the year under consideration, a survey was made on 8.10.1992, in which, stock of Sweet and Namkeens were found.  One copy in the form of order, book was found in which, order for 3490.5 Kg. of Sweet was booked and value of which was Rs.1,52,795/- while the applicant had disclosed sales only for Rs.1,07,750/--.  It was explained that out of order booked, some of the orders have been cancelled.  This explanation has not been accepted by the Tribunal.  Further in one of the seized document, there was an entry of Rs.17,000/- relating to supply of food to 250 persons.  This Purcha was in the letter pad of the applicant.  It was explained that the said Purcha did not belong to the applicant and relates to the father for his personal purpose.  This explanation of the applicant was also not accepted, inasmuch as, Purcha was found from the business premises of the applicant and it was on the letter pad of the applicant.  Tribunal further found that five Karigars were found working.  Looking to the entire facts and circumstances, turnover at Rs.6,75,000/- was fixed.  Having regard to the suppression found at the time of survey dated 8.10.1992 referred above, it can not be said that the estimate is arbitrary and without any basis.  Question of estimate is the question of fact unless arbitrary and without any basis.  In the case of estimate, there is always some element of guess work.

In the circumstances, revision fails and is dismissed.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.