Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S KOHINOOR BRICK FIELD, CHURAINI THU' ITS PARNTER versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. AT LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Kohinoor Brick Field, Churaini Thu' Its Parnter v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. At Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1535 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19597 (20 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.1535 OF 2006

M/s Kohinoor Brick Field, Churiani, Fatehpur.       ....Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. at 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 22nd July, 2006 relating to the assessment year 2000-01.

Applicant was carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of bricks. The only dispute raised at the time of hearing of the revision is that the assessing authority as well as first appellate authority have accepted the closing stock of the bricks at 3,93,400 at the end of the assessment year but the Tribunal has only allowed the benefit of 2 lacs bricks while such issue was not in dispute before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that  the Tribunal has illegally allowed the benefit of 2 lacs bricks in closing stock as against the closing stock at 3,93,400 bricks. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that since at the time of survey dated 23.05.2000 only 60,000 to 65000 bricks were found in the stock and 2,37,500 bricks were estimated to have been manufactured, the maximum closing stock should be 3 lacs bricks, while the applicant has shown the closing stock at 3,93,400 bricks.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant.

The closing stock at 3,93,400 bricks have been accepted by the assessing authority as well as by the first appellate authority. The issue of closing stock was not in dispute before the Tribunal. Thus, Tribunal has illegally adjudicated the issue, which was not in dispute and has illegally reduced the closing stock. Further at the time of survey  dated 23.05.2000,  60,000 to 65,000 bricks  were said to be found. It appears that the closing stock of bricks have been mentioned by estimate and not after physical verification. Thus, stock taken at the time of survey dated 23.05.2000, which was mentioned by estimate, can not be much relied upon to dispute the closing stock, which was accepted by the assessing authority and by the first appellate authority. Moreover, no objection has been raised in the show cause notice. In the circumstances, closing stock disclosed by the applicant is liable to be accepted.

In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside. Tribunal is directed to pass the appropriate order under section 11 (8) of the Act taking the closing stock disclosed by the applicant at 3,93,4000 bricks.

Dt. 20.11.2006

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.