Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S/S JANTA INT UDYOG versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S/S Janta Int Udyog v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 532 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12827 (2 August 2006)

 

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. 43

Trade Tax Revision no.  (532) Of 2006.

S/S Janta Int Udyog, Ghazipur. ... Revisionist.

Versus

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 01st,  October, 2003 relating to the assessment year 2000-01 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.  

Applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of bricks.  It is the case of the applicant that the Kiln was not operated in the first season and was operated only in the second season under the Compounding Scheme.  It was contended that after Holi, production in the Kiln was closed.  Two surveys were made in the first season on 14.4.2000 and 27.5.2000 and in both the surveys, firing was found closed.  The Assessing Authority however, disbelieved the claim of the applicant and estimated the firing period at 30 days in first season and estimated the production accordingly.    The First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal in part.  The applicant filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that there was no material on record to show that the Kiln was operated during the first season.  He submitted that at the time of survey dated 14.4.2000, it was told that the production was closed after Holi and at the time of survey, stock of coal was nil and stock of Kachchi bricks was only 60000 and firing was found closed.  In the subsequent survey dated 27.5.2000, production was found closed, thus, there was no reason to disbelieve the claim of the applicant.

I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant.   At the time of survey dated 14.4.2000, the production was found closed.  In the assessment order, it is mentioned that it was told that the firing was closed after Holi and there was only 60000 Kachchi bricks and stock of coal was found nil.  In the subsequent survey dated 27.5.2000 again Kiln was found closed.  In non of the surveys, it has been suggested that the Kiln was operated during the first season.  Thus, in my opinion the estimate of firing in the first season is without any basis and arbitrary.

In the result, revision is allowed.  The order of Tribunal dated 01.10.2003 is set aside.  The Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate order under Section 11 (8) of the Act.

Dt:02.08.2006.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.