Court No. - 59
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 344 of 2009 Revisionist :- M.S Shanker Int Udyog Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- Rishi Raj Kapoor Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Khushagra Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
2. The present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 31.01.2009 in Second Appeal No.355 of 2004 for A.Y. 2001-02. By that order, the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee but dismissed the same for enhancement of firing period for the first season of A.Y. 2001-02.
3. Undisputedly, the assessee was running a brick kiln during the year in question. It disclosed firing period of 21 days in the first season and 24 days in the second season. Arising from the stock of ready bricks recorded in the survey report dated 31.10.2001, the Assessing Officer enhanced the firing period of first season to 60 days. Upon appeal, the same has got reduced to 43 days. That part of the order is not in dispute.
4. While, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was no material to enhance the firing period for the second season, and in that regard, he has also referred to the findings of the appeal authority whereby the enhancement made to the firing period for the second season for the assessment year in question was deleted, it remains undisputed that the stock of 8,00,000 bricks was recorded in the survey conducted on 31.10.2001. It was not commensurate to the firing period of 24 days disclosed by the assessee, keeping in mind, the total capacity of the brick kiln being 1,00,000 bricks in 5 days.
5. The above findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are based on material and evidence existing on record. No extenuating circumstance has been shown as may call for any interference by this Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
6. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 S.Chaurasia