Court No. - 33 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1699 of 2006 Petitioner :- M/S Ram Kripal Singh Thru' Prop. Respondent :- Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- N.C. Gupta Respondent Counsel :- S.C. Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the
learned standing counsel for the State.
This revision has been filed by the assessee under
Section 11 of the U.P.Trade Tax Act for the
assessment year 1993-94 against the order of the
Tribunal dated 23.7.2004.
The questions of law referred to are hereunder:
“I. Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur,
was justified in partly allowing the appeal of the
Trade Tax Department even though no rebut or
presumption of any authority was on record.
II. Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur was
justified in confirming the disallowance of the
1,48,000 bricks given for soil consumption to the
land owner, from where the soil has been used as
raw material for manufacture of bricks, despite the
fact that the applicant/revisionist has already filed
copy of agreement in which the names and
addresses have already been mentioned ?
III. Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal, Gorkahpur,
was justified in not using the powers under Rule 75
of the U.P.Trade Tax Rules, 1948 which provides
summoning of the party concerned, as such
disallowing 1,48,000 bricks given for soil
compensation was incorrect and bad in the eyes of
law.”
However, upon reading the Tribunal’s order, it was
evident that the Tribunal has examined the matter at
length and after perusing the record has assessed the
turnover of the asseee.
I see no reason to interfere in the order passed by by
the Tribunal.
This revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.1.2010
AKJ