1987 (10) TMI 370 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of account books and determination of estimated turnover.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a revision under Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, filed by a brick manufacturing business against an order passed by the Sales-tax Tribunal. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 1978-79, where the account books of the assessee were rejected, and the turnover was determined based on estimates. The first appellate authority provided some relief in terms of turnover, but both the Revenue and the assessee appealed to the Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal, where both appeals were dismissed. The assessee then filed for revision.

The primary contention raised by the counsel for the assessee was that the account books were wrongly rejected, and the estimated turnover was excessive. Upon hearing both parties, the judge decided to set aside the order of the Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration, thereby not delving into the validity of the rejection of account books.

The judgment further delves into the dispute regarding the firing period of the brick kiln, which was a crucial factor in determining the production of bricks. The first appellate authority had discarded the firing period shown by the assessee, citing lack of intimation about temporary closure. However, the judge highlighted that there was no legal obligation for the assessee to provide such intimation, as per relevant case laws cited.

Another significant issue was the capacity of the brick kiln, which was determined based on varying measurements recorded on different occasions. The judge noted discrepancies in the measurements and directed a fresh consideration by the Sales-tax Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of accurate assessment in the interest of justice.

Various other contested points, such as the time required for completing one full round and producing a specific quantity of bricks, were also raised but were left for the Sales-tax Tribunal to decide afresh. Ultimately, the judgment allowed the revision, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed a fresh consideration of the appeal in accordance with the observations made.