High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner Trade Tax v. M/S Royal Cold Strip Rolling Mill - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 2083 of 2004  RD-AH 14733 (30 August 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 2083 OF 2004.
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow. Applicant Versus
M/S Royal Cold Strip Mill, Kanpur. Opp-party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 9th March, 2004 relating to the assessment year, 1996-97.
The opposite party was a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of agricultural implements and M.S. Ingots. The books of account of the dealer has been rejected on the various grounds and by way of best judgment assessment, turnover has been estimated. First appeal has been allowed in part. Against the order of the first appellate authority, dealer as well as Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Commissioner of Trade Tax and has partly allowed the appeal of the dealer.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
There is no dispute about the rejection of the books of account, the same is conceded. The only dispute relates to the estimate of turnover. Turnover has been estimated mainly on the basis of parcha no.46 which was found and seized at the time of survey dated 20th June, 1996. According to the department, in parcha no.46, the production of one day dated 19.06.1996 was mentioned which was not found entered in the books of account, while according the dealer it was for two days, namely, the production of 12.06.1996 and 19.06.1996. Tribunal has accepted the plea of the dealer that in the alleged parcha no.46, the production of two days was mentioned and having regard to the capacity of Bhatti at 4.5 MT, per day production has been estimated at 4.5 MT per day and accordingly, the turnover has been estimated.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that on the top of parcha no.46, 19/6 is mentioned, it means that it was related to 19th June, 1996 only and there is nothing to show that it includes the production of 12th June, 1996. Tribunal has erred in treating the said parcha relating to two days.
Learned counsel for the opposite party justified the view taken by the Tribunal on the ground that RG-1 register for the month of June, which has filed along with the supplementary affidavit reveals that in none of the days, the production exceeded 4.5 MT; the capacity of the Bhatti was accepted at 4.5 MT as per the certificate issued by the Industry Department; there is no dispute that there was only 198 working days; that after 12th June, 1996, the production was closed on 13, 14, 15 and thereafter the production was made on 16th June, 1996; in the year, 1994-95, the average production per day was 3.881 MT and in the assessment year, 1995-96 the average production per day was 3.74 MT have been accepted. This year the average production of 3.927 MT has been disclosed; in reply to the show cause notice, it was explained that due to restriction imposed by the Electricity Department the production could not be made during the day time and it was only made in the night and this fact has not been disputed. It is further submitted that if parcha no.46 is to be taken for one day, the production hour comes to 21.30 hours which was not possible due to power restriction.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.
I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
Having regard to the fact that the capacity of Bhatti was 4.5 MT per day as certified by the Industry Department and in none of the days the production exceeded 4.5 MT and in the year, 1994-95 3.881 MT and 1995-96, 3.74 MT per day production has been accepted, the estimate of the production on the basis of 4.5 MT per day cannot be said to be arbitrary and without any basis. In this view of the matter, the view of the Tribunal that Parcha no.46 relates to the production of two days cannot be said to be erroneous and does not require any interference.
In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.