9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) TMI 132 - Supreme Court] Thus, it is clear that no question of law is emerging from the impugned order passed by Tribunal. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Order is hereby sustained. - Trade Tax Revision No. -25 of 2008, Trade Tax Revision No. - 26 of 2008, Trade Tax Revision No. - 27 of 2008, Trade Tax Revision No. - 28 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 22-5-2013 - Dr. Satish Chandra,JJ. For the Petitioner : M. M. Dewan For the Respondent : C. S. C. ORDER All the revisions have been filed by the assessee under section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the consolidated judgment and order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in Second Appeals No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax; (1993) U.P.T.C. 509, where the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal. He also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of M/s. Maruti Enterprises, Gorakhpur vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax; (1996) U.P.T.C. 512 where it was observed that:- "an authority higher in hierarchy, is entitled to reverse, vary or confirm the order of an inferior authority. However, where the order of any inferior authority is being reversed, the least that is expected is that the view which found favour with the inferior authority, should be met by the authority interfering with the order appealed against. The past history of an assessee has always been held to be a relevant consideration in estimating the turnover of a given ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther, it may be mentioned that estimation is a question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Stoneman Marble Industries and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 758. Similar views were expressed by this Hon'ble High Court in the following cases: 1. TTR - 139 of 2002 M/S Abdul Aziz Ashfaq Ahmed vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax decided on 14.07.2011; 2. TTR 137 of 2002, M/S Steel Fabricators Lucknow v. Commissioner of Trade Tax decided on 14.07.2011 ; and 3. TTR 232 of 2004, M/S Singh Gramodyog Int Bhatta, Hardoi vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax decided on 07.05.2012. 4. TTRD 335 of 2010, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Lucknow vs. M/s Star Brick Works Lucknow decided on 06.05.2013 Thus, in view of above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
