9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that there is no material in possession of the Department to show that the brick-kiln was fired on April 1, 1987, therefore, hold that the brick-kiln was fired on April 11, 1987. The period from April 1, 1987 to April 10, 1987 should be deducted from 91 days of the firing as was determined by the Tribunal.The firing period is reduced to 81 days. The Tribunal shall calculate the production of bricks for 81 days and pass consequential order accordingly. The revision succeeds and is allowed in part as indicated above. - - - - - Dated:- 12-8-2008 - PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. PRAKASH KRISHNA J. The present revision is directed against the order dated November 3, 2000 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Allahabad in second appeal No. 422 of 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egular course of business and no incriminating material regarding suppression of production and sale was found at the time of survey dated April 13, 1987 and July 18, 1987? 2.. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in estimating the firing period continuously from April 1, 1987 to June 30, 1987, i.e., a total of 91 days against the disclosed firing period of 27 days particularly when the intimations of start and closure of firing were given and no inquiry in respect of the same was ever conducted by the assessing authority? 3.. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in determining the production and sale of bricks on the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Having gone through the order of the Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the account books. The account books were not found at the time of two surveys dated April 13, 1987 and July 8, 1987. The authorities below have not accepted the explanation furnished by the dealer and the said matter is basically a finding a fact. Even otherwise also, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the facts as found in the two surveys do show that the firing period disclosed by the applicant is not correct. The apex court in a recent judgment in Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Mohan Brickfield, Agra [2006] 148 STC 638 (SC); [2007] UP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
