Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S ADARSH KUMHARI AYUDYOGIC UTPADAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED versus COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Adarsh Kumhari Ayudyogic Utpadan Sahkari Samiti Limited v. Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1435 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17155 (4 October 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.1435 OF 2006

M/s Adarsh Kumhari Audyogic Utpadan

Sahkari Samiti Limited.       ....Applicant

Versus

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 "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 16th June, 2006 relating to the assessment year 1994-95.

Applicant was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of bricks. Applicant had disclosed the firing period from 01.04.1994 to 15.04.1994, 22.05.1994 to 26.05.1994 and 13.06.1994 to 30.06.1994 for 37 days in the first season.  After rejecting the books of account, firing period had been estimated at 53 days in the first season and 18 days in the second season. There is no dispute about the firing period of second season.  The main dispute relates to the closure of firing from 15.04.1994 to 22.05.1994, which was rejected on the basis of the survey dated 27.04.1994. The rejection of closure of the firing was confirmed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.1994. Applicant filed Trade Tax Revision No.2030 of 2004 before this Court which has been decided vide order dated 18.09.2004. The claim of the applicant  was that objection was filed on 30.04.1994 disputing the averments made in the survey report dated 27.04.1994, which was not considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal was vitiated. This Court has allowed the aforesaid revision and remanded back the matter to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh with the direction to consider the objection dated 30.04.1994.  Tribunal by the impugned order decided the appeal. Tribunal has upheld the rejection of claim of closure of firing from 16.04.1994 to 21.05.1994. On the basis of the survey dated 27.04.1994, Tribunal held that at the time of survey dated 27.04.1994, kiln was found in operation and in the objection dated 30.04.1994, the fact that kiln was in operation has not been disputed and it has not been said that at the time of survey dated 27.04.1994 firing was closed. Thus, Tribunal was of the view that the closure of firing from 16.04.1994 to 21.05.1994 has been wrongly claimed by the applicant. After the rejection of firing period by way of best judgment assessment, firing period had been estimated at 53 days in the first season.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

On the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.

In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.04.10.2006

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.