Court No. - 33 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 248 of 2008 Petitioner :- S/S Satya Narain Int Bhattha Respondent :- Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow Petitioner Counsel :- M.R. Gupta Respondent Counsel :- S.C. And Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 247 of 2008 Petitioner :- S/S Satya Narain Int Bhattha Respondent :- Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow And Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 246 of 2008 Petitioner :- S/S Satya Narain Int Bhattha Respondent :- Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
These three revisions have been filed by the
assessee for the assessment year 1994-95, 1995-96,
1996-97 against the common order of the Tribunal
dated 29.4.2006. The questions of law referred to in
leading revision no.248 of 2008 are hereunder :-
1. Whether the Tribunal has committed illegality in fixing the firing period for
40 days while the first appellate court accepted the firing period of 15 days on
the basis of the evidence on record ?
2. Whether the Tribunal has committed illegality in passing the impugned
order without setting aside the finding of the appellate court about the firing
period which is based upon the evidence on record ?
3. Whether the order of Tribunal is unreasonable, illegal and without
considering the evidence on record ?
I have heard learned Counsels at length.
The grievance of the revisionist is that his turnover
has been estimated on the higher side. However, on
a perusal of the order of the Tribunal it is clear that
for the three years in question the assessee had not
maintained any account books. The estimation of
turnover made for the three years is on the basis of
surveys made during the relevant years.
The Tribunal has taken a liberal view in the matter
and has given all kinds of concessions to the
assessee despite the absence of the account books.
The assessment made by the Tribunal appears to be
reasonable and justified, in the facts and
circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the
order passed by the Tribunal.
These revisions have no merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.2.2010
S.P.