High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S B.N. Singhania Brick Field v. Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1511 of 2003  RD-AH 319 (19 July 2004)
Court no. 55
Trade Tax Revision no. 1511 Of 2003.
M/S B. N.Singhania Bricks Field..............................................Revisionist.
Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow...............................Respondent.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J,
The present revision is being directed against the order of Tribunal dated 22.3.2003 for the assessment year 1996-97.
The applicant was carrying on the business of manufacturing and sales of bricks for the assessment year in dispute and moved an application under Section 7-D under the compounding scheme for the payment of tax in lump sum. It appears that the application under Section 7-D was accepted on 27.1.1999 and thereafter an order under Section 22 was passed by the Assessing Authority on 08.8.2001 on the ground that the applicant has disclosed 19 Payas in the application while at the time of survey dated 7.10.1997 as informed by Sales Tax Officer, Raebareli vide letter no. 173 dated 5.8.1999, 22 Payas were found. Assessing Authority raised demand of Rs.32,000/- on the ground that in the Brick Kiln, of 22 Payas compounding fee was Rs.88,000/- while a sum of Rs.66,000/- was paid on 19 Payas. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, applicant filed appeal before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeal), Sales Tax Allahabad, which was allowed vide order dated 15.6.2002. Commissioner, Trade Tax filed appeal against the said order before the Tribunal. Tribunal vide dated 22.3.2003 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of First Appellate Authority.
The contention of learned Counsel for the applicant is that the order of Tribunal is illegal and erroneous, inasmuch as, Tribunal has not considered the finding recorded by the first Appellate Authority that at the time of survey dated 17.8.1996 which is relevant for the year under consideration and at the time of survey dated 28.3.1998, only 19 Payas were found and the issue with regard to Paya was debatable and therefore, beyond the purview of Section 22 of the Act.
Having heard Counsel for the parties. In my opinion, order of Tribunal is illegal and erroneous. Under Section 22, only those mistakes which are apparent on the face of record can be rectified and the mistakes which requires investigation and debate and two opinions, are possible, can not be rectified. In the present case, First Appellate Authority found that at the time of survey dated 17.8.1996 which is relevant for the assessment year 1996-97 only 19 Payas were found, therefore, the issue whether on the basis of survey dated 7.10.1997 which is alleged to have been made by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector-2, Raebareli, in which, 22 Payas were informed, can be relied upon for the assessment year 1996-97 is debatable issue and requires application of mind and investigation and therefore, the alleged mistake can not be said to be a mistake apparent on the face of record, inasmuch as out side the purview of Section 22.
In the result, revision is allowed and the order of Tribunal dated 22.3.2003 is set aside and the order of the First Appellate Authority is restored.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.