High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Sanjay And Company v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 671 of 2000  RD-AH 17460 (10 October 2006)
Court no. 22
Trade Tax Revision no. 671 Of 2000.
Trade Tax Revision no. 672 Of 2000.
. M/S Sanjay and Company, Pratapgarh. ... Revisionist.
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow..... ... Opp. Party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present two revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 29th , February, 2000 relating to the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively.
Applicant claimed to have operated the Kiln for 15 days each in the aforesaid two assessment years. It was claimed that in the assessment year 1994-95, the Kiln was not operated in the first season and was only operated in the second season while for the assessment year 1995-96, the Kiln was operated in the first season and not operated in the second season and the Kiln was also sold to one Sri Ram Babu Jaiswal on 28.2.1996. The Assessing Authority had rejected the books of account and estimated the turnover by way of best judgment assessment. In the assessment year 1994-95, firing period was estimated at 127 days on the basis of material found at the time of survey dated 10.9.1994 and for the assessment year 1995-96, firing period was estimated at 97 days on the basis of survey dated 16.9.1995. The First Appeal relating to the assessment year 1994-95 was allowed in part and the appeal for the assessment year 1995-96 was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order, applicant filed second appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed both the appeals in part. For the assessment year 1994-95, the Tribunal has fixed the firing period at 120 days and for the assessment year 1995-96, the Tribunal has confirmed the estimate of firing period at 97 days. However, for both the assessment years, the selling rates have been reduced.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has illegally estimated the firing period for both the assessment years. He submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the submissions of the applicant and has not given any reason for fixation of the firing period.
I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. In my opinion, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. The Tribunal has not considered the reasoning given by the Assessing Authority for the fixation of the
turnover and has also not considered the plea of the applicant and has illegally estimated the firing period at 120 days for the assessment year 1994-95 and confirmed the firing period at 97 days for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal is the last court of fact should examine the material on record and also pleas of the dealer and thereafter, adjudicate the issue by giving reasons, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh.
In the result, both the above revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh. Since the matter is quite old, the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeals expeditiously.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.