High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Kanak Food Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 2616 of 2005  RD-AH 17696 (13 October 2006)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.2616 of 2005
M/S Kanak Food Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi. Applicant
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 "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 27th July, 2005 relating to the assessment year, 1999-2000.
The applicant was involved in the business of manufacture and sales of Atta etc. The books of account of the applicant has been mainly rejected on the basis of the document seized at the time of survey made by the TTO (SIB) at the premises of M/S Vindhyavasini Confectioners, Varanasi and turnover has been estimated by way of best judgment assessment. The dispute in the present revision relates to the estimate of turnover. Having regard to the fact that the applicant had three chakkis of 24 inches and as per certificate furnished by the applicant the capacity of chakki was for the manufacturing of 200-225 kg per day, as per the production register, per day production was shown at 12.5 quintals and looking into the working hours, the Tribunal has estimated the production at 110 quintals per day and multiplying by 300 days, estimated the production at 33,000 quintals. Tribunal has further given the benefit of 5 percent towards the manufacturing of chokar, estimated the net production at 31,350 quintals and accordingly, estimated the turnover.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the estimate of turnover is arbitrary. He submitted that the applicant had operated its unit only upto 30th November, 1999 and, therefore, the estimate of production for 300 days is arbitrary. He further submitted that during the period 1.4.1999 to 30.11.1999, the production was not made continuously, but on number of days the production was closed and, therefore, the benefit of the closure of the production should also be allowed. In this way, the Tribunal has erred in taking 300 working days and estimating the turnover accordingly. Learned Standing Counsel did not dispute that the production was only up to 30th November 1999. In this view of the matter, in my view the Tribunal has illegally taken 300 working days and estimated the turnover accordingly.
For the reasons stated above, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to re-determine the turnover after determining the working days keeping in view the case of the applicant that the unit could not work continuously every day during the period 1.4.1999 to 30.11.1999.
In the result, revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.