Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S GOLDEN BRICK FIELD THRU' ITS PARTNER MOHD. AKHTAR versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Golden Brick Field Thru' Its Partner Mohd. Akhtar v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 17 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19479 (17 November 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.(17) OF 2006

M/s Golden Brick Field, Nizam Mandi,

Pilibhit.       ....Applicant

Versus

The 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 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 22.06.2005 relating to the assessment year 2001-02.

Applicant was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of bricks. Assessing authority by way of best judgment assessment estimated the firing for two rounds and average selling rate at Rs.1000/- per thousand bricks. The claim of the applicant about the distribution of five lacs bricks  amongst the partners of the firm have also been rejected in the absence of any evidence being adduced. First appeal filed by the applicant was allowed in part. First appellate authority reduced the firing period to 30 days and estimated the production of one round of the bricks and the average selling rate at Rs.1,000/- per thousand bricks has been confirmed. First appellate authority has allowed 1,37,500 bricks being used by the partners in the repair of their house as against the claim of five lacs bricks in the absence of any evidence. Order of the first appellate authority has been confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not allowing the benefit of the bricks, which have been distributed amongst the partners of the firm. All the authorities have held that the applicant has not adduced any evidence to prove the distribution of the bricks amongst the partners. In the absence of any evidence, it can not be said that the order of the Tribunal is arbitrary or unjustified.

So far as estimate of the production  and the average selling rate are concerned, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Question of estimate is question of fact.

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

Dt.17.11.2006

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.