2019 (11) TMI 945 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Estimation of turnover of production of bricks - Reduction in firing period - the assessee had disclosed the firing period of 53 days from 12.01.2000 to 05.03.2000 - HELD THAT - Though there may be some force in the submission of learned counsel for the assessee that there is no direct material to reach a conclusion that the assessee had run the brick-kiln for 65 days and not 53 days (as disclosed by him), however, that issue is a pure question of fact which is to be decided in the facts and evidence obtaining in each case. This Court is not required to interfere with the findings of fact, unless shown to be perverse, and in the second, in the facts of the present case, it is seen that the assessee had not maintained any books of accounts. Once there were no books, the best judgment assessment become a necessary consequence - In the matter of estimation, though the Assessing Authority had made a vast addition by increasing the firing period from 53 days to 90 days, the first appellate authority has taken a pragmatic view and reduced the same to 65 days. In doing so, the first appellate authority appears to have relied on the facts discovered during the survey dated 21.01.2000 with respect to preparation of raw bricks etc. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Revision against Commercial Tax Tribunal order for A.Y. 1999-2000 - Estimation of firing period for brick-kiln operation - Best judgment assessment without maintained books of accounts - Reduction of firing period from 90 to 65 days by first appellate authority - Lack of direct material for exact firing period determination - Interference with Tribunal's findings based on material and evidence.

Analysis:
1. The revision was filed against the Commercial Tax Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1999-2000, concerning the estimation of the firing period for a brick-kiln operation. The assessing authority had estimated the firing period at 90 days based on a solitary survey, as the assessee had not maintained books of accounts. The first appellate authority, considering the facts from the survey and the disclosed firing period of 53 days, reduced the firing period to 65 days.

2. The Court noted that the issue of determining the exact firing period was a question of fact to be decided based on the evidence in each case. The absence of direct material to conclusively establish the firing period was acknowledged. However, it was emphasized that the Court should not interfere with factual findings unless they are shown to be perverse. The best judgment assessment was deemed necessary due to the lack of maintained books of accounts.

3. The Court highlighted that the first appellate authority's decision to reduce the firing period to 65 days was based on a pragmatic view, considering the facts revealed during the survey regarding the preparation of raw bricks. The Tribunal's findings were considered to be supported by the material and evidence on record, leading to the conclusion that there was no justification for interference.

4. Ultimately, the Court found that the revision lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly. The decision was based on the understanding that the Tribunal's findings were grounded in the available material and evidence, and therefore, did not warrant any intervention. The importance of factual evidence and the assessment process in the absence of maintained books of accounts were central to the Court's analysis and decision in this case.