Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S DIXIT BRICK WORKS versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. LUKCNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Dixit Brick Works v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lukcnow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1450 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 1991 (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.1450 of 2005.

M/S Dixit Brick Works, Jaipur House, Agra.           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 8th June, 2005 relating to the assessment year 1992-93.

Applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bricks. The only disputed raised with regard to the estimate of turnover in the first season. The applicant has disclosed the firing period for 36 days, which has been estimated at 110 days by the assessing authority and confirmed by the first appellate authority. Tribunal, however, reduced the firing period to 72 days.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the estimate of firing period at 72 days is arbitrary. I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. Admittedly, the applicant could not produce the documents which were signed at the time of survey dated 3.7.1992 and could not adduce any evidence for the closure of the firing period and, thus, the estimate of firing period from 14.5.1992 to 19.7.1992 by way of best judgment assessment cannot be said to be arbitrary and without any basis..

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

Dated.25.01.2006.

VS.


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.