Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S RAMAN BRICKS FACTORY versus THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Raman Bricks Factory v. The Commissioner, Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1973 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 134 (10 January 2005)

 

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. 1973 of 2004.

M/S Raman Bricks Factory, Mathura. ... Petitioners.

Vs.

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

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 05.6.2004 relating to assessment year 1991-92.

Applicant was engaged in the manufacture and sale of Bricks .  It had claimed that during the year under consideration, it had not made any firing. However,  at the time of survey dated 19.3.1991, firing was found and at the time of survey dated 29.5.1991, it was found that Pathai, Bharai, Phukai was closed and only Nikasi was going on and Kiln was filled with two Ghattis.  On the basis of above two surveys, it was inferred that the Kiln must have been operated before 29.05.1991. Accordingly, the Assessing Authority had estimated the production at 10 Lacs bricks.  First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal in part, estimated the production at 5 Lacs and selling rate at Rs.550/-.  Against the order of First Appellate Authority, applicant as well as Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal.  Tribunal rejected the appeal of the applicant and partly allowed the appeal of Commissioner of Trade Tax.  Tribunal has estimated the production of bricks at 8,00,000 and after applying the selling rate at Rs.550/-, enhanced the turnover by Rs.1,65.000/-.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that admittedly  at the time of survey dated 29.5.1991, Pathai, Bharai and Phukai were found closed and there was no material that the Kiln had operated from 1.4.1991 up to 29.5.1991 and therefore, the estimate of production at 8,00,000 is arbitrary.  I find force in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant.  I do not find any reason  to interfere with the order of First Appellate Authority.  Admittedly, at the time of survey dated 29.5.1991, Pathai, Bharai and Phukai was found closed, therefore, production at 5,00,000 estimated by the First Appellate Authority appears to be reasonable.

In the result, revision is allowed.  Order of Tribunal is set aside and the order of First Appellate Authority is restored.

Dt:10.1.05.

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.