Court No. - 5
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 977 of 2008 Applicant :- S/S Suman Ent Udyog Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Trade/Commercial Tax U.P. At Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Ved Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Avinash Chandra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Commissioner.
The present revision has been filed under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act read with Section 58 of U.P. Vat Act.
The applicant was engaged in manufacture and sale of bricks for the assessment year 2002-03. The applicant discloses the firing days during the assessment year in question as 60 days. The assessing authority however fixed the firing days as 103 and the books of account of the applicant was rejected.
The fixation of the firing days by the assessing authority was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority, however the Tribunal after considering the submission of the applicant and after considering the orders passed by the authorities below have arrived at a conclusion that during the assessment year in question the brick kiln was operated by the applicant as 80 days.
Admittedly during the assessment year in question 3 surveys were conducted at the brick kiln of the applicant i.e. on 09.04.2002, 14.06.2002 and 06.03.2003.
Admittedly, on each of the surveys the brick kiln was found operational and certain incriminating material was found by the surveying team.
The applicant has disclosed the selling rate of Rs. 1,000 per thousand bricks as against of which the assessing authority, after considering the material gathered by the surveying authority, has fixed the selling rate @ of Rs. 1250 per thousand bricks.
The selling rate determined by the assessing authority has been affirmed by the First Appellate Authority as well as by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded categorical finding while affirming the selling rate fixed by the assessing authority by saying that the estimate by the assessing authority is justified as the same is based on the material available on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel and perused the orders passed by the authorities below and the order passed by the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the applicant, after some arguments, could not dispute that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact and nothing could be shown to demonstrate that the said findings are perverse or contrary to record or are otherwise not in accordance with law.
The findings recorded by the Tribunal are fully supported by the material gathered by the surveying team on three occasions.
In view thereof, the question of law referred by the applicant are answered against the assesse/applicant.
The revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 SK Srivastava