Allahabad High Court
S/S Guput Nath Sant Ram Ent Bhatta vs The Commissioner Commercial Tax on 22 July, 2019
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1815 of 2008 Revisionist :- S/S Guput Nath Sant Ram Ent Bhatta Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- Aloke Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. The present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal dated, Bench-I, Varanasi, dated 04.01.2008 in Second Appeal No. 829 of 2002 (A.Y. 1999-00) by which the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee filed against the best judgement assessment order. The firing period of the assessee's brick kiln, which was disclosed at 12 days in return but estimated at 145 days by the assessing officer and 65 days by the first appeal authority has been reduced to 45 days.
2. Heard Sri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.
3. In the present revision, the following questions of law have been pressed:
"(i) Whether firing period can be enhanced in absence of any material merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures?
(ii) Whether authorities functioning under the provisions of U.P. Trade Tax Act including the Tribunal can be permitted to fix the taxable turnover and tax merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures?"
4. Learned counsel for the assessee submits, in fact the assessee had run the brick kiln for only 12 days from 04.01.2000 to 25.01.2000, it had given written intimation of closure of the brick kiln on 25.01.2000. However, the assessing authority disbelieved that claim on the strength of a single survey dated 21.01.2000. As to that survey, it has been submitted, no adverse material was discovered during that survey as may have led to the finding of running of brick kiln for 145 days. Also, there is no material to enhance the selling rate from Rs. 650/- per thousand to Rs. 900/- per thousand, as has been in the present case.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the assessee and learned Standing Counsel, it is clear, in the first place, the assessee had offered a very unusual explanation of having running brick kiln for only 12 days, in the entire assessment year. Having started the brick kiln on 14.1.2000, it was disclosed to have been closed on 25.1.2000. No credible evidence was led by the assessee as may have led to acceptance of such an unusual fact. While the assessing authority made an estimation of firing period of 145 days, the Tribunal had granted sufficient relief and reduced the same to 45 days, which appears to be wholly reasonable and pragmatic, keeping in mind the quantity of coal (7 tonnes), found at the time of survey and the stock of finished and unfinished bricks of 20,000 and 40,000 respectively, discovered there at that time. These facts indicate that some manufacturer had been purposely engaged by the assessee.
6. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal estimating the firing period of 45 days appears to be based on material or evidence, which does not warrant any interference. As for the selling rate, it is seen, though the assessee relied on cash memos disclosing sale value @ Rs. 650 per thousand bricks and referred to the resolution by the Brick Kilns Manufacturers Association fixing that rate, the assessing authority had referred to the assessment order, of the earlier year, where the selling rate had been fixed at Rs. 800/- per thousand. Keeping in mind the same was estimated @ Rs. 1,000/- per thousand by the assessing authority, however, the same has been reduced by the Tribunal to Rs. 980/- per thousand.
7. In the entirety to the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear to be a fit case to warrant any interference with the selling rate, inasmuch as fine adjustments with findings of fact are not permissible, under revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. The present revision is accordingly dismissed. The questions of law, that have been raised in that regard, may remain open to be raised and considered in an appropriate case.
Order Date :- 22.7.2019 Prakhar