✦ Uttarakhand High Court

/ 1992) M/s Shyam Sunder and Brothers Village – Charwa District Dehradun v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow

Tax Revision No. 106 of 2003PRAFULLA C PANT2 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

is answered accordingly, and, the revision is dismissed

Judgment

1.

“Whether, circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal as well as authorities below it were justified in rejecting the account books of the applicant?”

2.

“Whether, circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal as well as the authorities below it justified in drawing adverse inference on the basis of surveys conducted on various i.e. on 25.04.86, 25.05.86, 13.07.96,

Operative part

07.12.86 & 20.03.87 in which no adverse material was allegedly found?” 4) The assessee is a partnership concern, which deals in the business of manufacture and sale of bricks. The case pertains to the assessment year 1986-87. The assessee filed its return for the said assessment year showing its taxable turnover at Rs.4,84,890/- and has admitted tax liability to the tune of Rs. 42,670.32 at the rate of 8.8%, thereon. The assessing officer vide his order dated 27.03.1991, rejected the account books and also enhanced the tax liability of the assessee. Against which the assessee filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Dehradun, which was partly allowed by it on 31.10.1991. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The learned Tribunal upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on 29.06.1992. Against the aforesaid order dated 29.06.1992 of Tribunal, the assessee has filed this revision before this Court. 5) I have gone through the entire record of the case. The learned Tribunal as well the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax have given concurrent findings of facts in their judgment. It appears that these are based on survey, conducted on business establishment of the assessee. As such, there is no error of law committed by the learned Tribunal in arriving at its findings. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the findings given by the learned Tribunal. 5) In view of the above discussion, the question of law is answered accordingly, and, the revision is dismissed. Dt.25.07.2005 HN (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: is answered accordingly, and, the revision is dismissed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 — s. 11; U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 — s. 35.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Uttarakhand High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Tax Revision No. 106 of 2003). ← Search more judgments