Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DURGA INT UDYOG versus THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX U.P., LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Durga Int Udyog v. The Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 2567 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 1964 (25 January 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.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.2567 OF 2005

S/S Durga Int Udyog, Bulandsahar. ....Applicant

Versus

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 11.08.2005 for the assessment year 2002-03.

Applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bricks. During the year under consideration, applicant had disclosed the firing period at 12 days, which had been enhanced to  102 days. Total production estimated was 20,85,000 bricks and the average selling rate was estimated at Rs.1,050/- per thousand bricks. Order of the assessing authority has been confirmed in appeal by the Joint Commissioner )Appeals) and by the ribunal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the estimate of the firing period at 102 days and the production at 20,85,000 bricks are arbitrary and without any basis. He submitted that the estimate of average selling rate at Rs.1,050/- per thousand bricks is arbitrary and without any basis. He further submitted that the total bricks used in the construction of house, road and temple etc. was at 6,75,000 bricks, while the assessing authority had allowed the benefit to the extent of 4,70,000 bricks only.

I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. Tribunal was justified in estimating the firing period at 102 days on the basis of the entries found in the register, seized at the time of survey dated 29.05.2002. It has been stated that in the seized register there was entry of production of bricks at 27,00,000 bricks. Tribunal has estimated the average selling rate at Rs.1,050/- per thousand bricks, has been fixed on the basis of the estimate of the average selling rate, fixed at Rs.1,000/- for the assessment year 2001-02. Learned counsel for the applicant is not able to adduce any evidence to show that the estimate of the average selling rate is arbitrary.

So far as the claim of 6,75,000 bricks is concerned, applicant had filed the certificate of Gram Pradhan. To verify the correctness of certificate of Gram Pradhan, assessing authority made the inspection on 19.08.2004 and found that only 4,70,000 bricks had been used in the construction of house, road and temple etc, which was allowed. The view of the assessing authority has been upheld by the Tribunal in the absence of any contrary material. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.

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

Dt.25.01.2006

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.