Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S SHIV NATH SINGH YADAV versus COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U.P. LKO.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Shiv Nath Singh Yadav v. Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lko. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 534 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15260 (4 September 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.22

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(534) of 2006

M/S Shiv Nath Singh Yadav Ent Bhatta, Ghazipur.                               Applicant

Versus

Commissioner, of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow.        Opp.Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 23rd December, 2005 relating to the assessment year, 2000-2001.

The applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bricks. It was claimed that during the year under consideration, the kiln was not operated. However, the claim was rejected on the ground that at the time of survey dated 1.5.2000, bharai and pathai was found going on. On this basis, the production has been estimated. Assessing authority estimated the average selling rate at Rs.1000/-. First appellate authority reduced the average selling rate, which has been confirmed in second appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the estimate of the firing period and production is not justified. He further submitted that in the previous year for the assessment year, 1999-2000, the average selling rate was estimated at Rs. 850/-, while for the same season, the estimate of average selling rate at Rs.950/- is unjustified.

I find some substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. So far as estimate of firing period and production is concerned, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. Estimate of the firing period on the basis of the survey-dated 1.5.2000 is justified inasmuch as the applicant has not produced any books of account in support of its claim.

So far as estimate of average selling rate at Rs. 950/- is concerned, there appears to be some substance. In the assessment year, 1999-2000, Tribunal has estimated the average selling rate at Rs.850/- for the same season, therefore, there appears to be no justification in estimating the average selling rate at Rs.950/-for this year in respect of the bricks produced and sold in the same season. The estimate of average selling rate at Rs. 850/- is, therefore, justified. Tribunal is directed to modify its order, and estimated the turnover over taking the average selling rate at Rs.850/-.

In the result, revision is allowed in part. Order of the Tribunal is set aside. Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate orders under section 11 (8) of the Act in the light of the observations made above.

Dated.04.09.2006/VS.


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.