High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Uma Shanker, Brick Field, Naini, Alld. v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 595 of 1999  RD-AH 12561 (31 July 2006)
Court no. 43
Trade Tax Revision no. (595) Of 1999.
M/S Uma Shankar, Brick Field, Allahabad. ... Revisionist.
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow..... Opp. Party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present revision under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 11th March, 1999 relating to the assessment year 1988-1989 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.
The applicant was carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of bricks. During the year under consideration, applicant claimed to have operated the Kiln for 31 days from 18.4.1988 to 27.4.1988 and 17.5.1988 to 6.6.1988. The Assessing Authority rejected the firing period and estimated at 48 days. The Assessing Authority had also estimated the average selling rate at Rs.480/- per thousand and accordingly enhanced the turnover. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order, allowed the appeal in part. The Tribunal has estimated the turnover at Rs.3,50,000/-. The Tribunal has sustained the estimate of firing period at 48 days. The Tribunal has however, fixed average selling rate at Rs.425/- per thousand.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had given information about the starting of firing period and disclosure of firing period by registered post. This fact is mentioned in the assessment order and has not been disputed. He submitted that at the time of survey dated 22.4.1998 and 29.5.1998, applicant had disclosed the firing period and there was nothing in the report, which suggests that firing period disclosed by the applicant was wrong. He further submitted that before the Tribunal, applicant had filed a copy of order in the case of S/S Diamond Brick Field, 17 Industrial Colony, Naini in which, average selling rate for the same assessment year 1988-89 at Rs.385/- had been fixed by the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal ought to have given a reason for rejecting such claim and fixing the average selling rate at Rs.425/-. He submitted that the Tribunal has not given reference of any case, in which, the average selling rate at Rs.425/- has been fixed. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.
I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.
I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant. The Tribunal has not considered that the applicant had given information for starting of firing by registered post, which is mentioned in the assessment order. The Tribunal has not referred any material found at the time of survey dated 22.4.1988 and 29.5.1988 to reject the firing period. The Tribunal has not given any basis for estimating the average selling rate at Rs.425/- while the applicant had filed a copy of the order in the case of M/S Diamond Brick Field, 17 Industrial Colony, Naini, in which, the average selling rate for the same assessment year at Rs.325/- was fixed by the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal ought to have given reasons for rejecting the firing period and fixing the average selling rate at 425/-. In view of the above, in my opinion, matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal.
In the result, revision is allowed. Order of Tribunal dated 11.3.1999 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of observations made above. The Tribunal is further directed to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.