Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S RAJARAM DAYARAM, B.K.O. KOLHOI BAZAR, MAHARAJGANJ versus THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s Rajaram Dayaram, B.K.O. Kolhoi Bazar, Maharajganj v. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1443 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3064 (19 September 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.1443 OF 2005

M/s Rajaram Dayaram, Mahrajganj. ....Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknlow. ....Opp. Party

***************

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 06.07.2005 for the assessment year 1983-84.

Applicant is involved in the business of manufacture and sale of bricks.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was involved in the business of bricks kiln. The only dispute which he has raised is regarding the firing period. He submitted that the applicant had disclosed the firing period from 01.04.1983 to 03.05.1983 for 32 days  and from 25.02.1984 to 31.03.1984 for 35 days in all 67 days which has been illegally estimated at 76 days consisting of 40 days in first season and 36 days in second season which had been illegally confirmed by the first appellate authority and by the Tribunal. He submitted that the information about the closure of firing from 03.05.1983 had been given on 18.06.1983 vide receipt no.351835 and there is no material on record to dispute the firing period. He submitted that at the time of survey dated 17.06.1983 also no adverse material was found to dispute the closure of firing from 03.05.1983. In this way,  the enhancement of firing period is without any basis.

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

I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. There appears to be no material to dispute the closure of the firing from 03.05.1983. The enhancement of the firing period for the first season is based on no material. The firing period for the second season has been accepted.  In the circumstances, the disclosed firing period for both the seasons are accepted. Tribunal is directed to estimate the turn over and production accordingly afresh.

In the result, revision is allowed in part. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to determine the turn over and production afresh.

Dt.19.09.2005

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.