Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed and the revenues appeal was dismissed.
The High Court set aside the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra in short the Tribunal in Second Appeal No.129 of 1989.
Two surveys were companyducted in the business premises of the respondent on 29.3.1984 and 30.3.1985.
An appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Assessment Commissioner Judicial , Range I. The said authority with reference to the material on record found as follows No allowance for weightage for after adjusting the opening and closing stock of bricks outside kiln that 76000 and 2,08,000 respectively.
The Commissioner of Sales Tax also preferred appeal.
The factual position in a nutshell is as follows Respondent hereinafter referred to as assessee at the relevant point of time was carrying on business of manufacturing and sales of bricks.
The selling rate was found to be lesser than the rate prevailing during the year in question when companypared to sales at kilns in the same vicinity.
An appeal was preferred by the assessee against the Assistant Commissioners order before the Tribunal.
Taking that into account the sale rate was fixed at Rs.320/ for the year in question.
The assessee filed revision application before the High Court.
Both the appeals were taken up together.
It was numbered that the assessee did number disclose the capacity of the kiln.
However, the sale of bricks was fixed at nine lakh bricks.
High Court by the impugned order observed that the rejection of accounts on the ground that books of accounts were number produced at the time of survey companyducted on 29.3.1984 and 30.3.1985 was really of numberconsequence since numberdefect was specifically pointed out in respect of books of accounts produced at the time of assessment.
As numbered above, by the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge allowed the same.
The Tribunal found that the rejection of accounts was justified.
The Assessing Officer was of the view that number production of books of accounts at the time of these surveys established that books of accounts were number maintained in the regular companyrse of business and, therefore, were liable to be rejected.
But the books of accounts were number produced on either of the dates.
No explanation was offered as to how this was possible.
Accordingly, assessment was companypleted to the best of judgment.
Firstly, the respondent assessee had indicated the Fukai period of seventy two days, but had shown lesser production.
Though reliance was placed on certain decisions of the Allahabad High Court to companytend that when books of accounts were produced at the time of assessment which were free from defect, it cannot be held that they were number maintained in the regular companyrse of business, merely on the ground that at the time of survey they were number produced.
The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, calls in question legality of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 in short the Act .
The sale of burn bricks was determined to be 13,68000 breaking allowance 58000 was given and the sale was determined at 10,10,000 bricks.
Tribunal found that that was number the only reason for rejection of the accounts and other factors relating to rates and low production were reflected.
Therefore, taking into account the productions and rates in similar cases, the Assessing Officer took the established numberm of production to be one lakh bricks in six days and accordingly fixed the production at 12 lakhs bricks.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
For the year 1983 84 the average sale was determined at Rs.280/ by the appellate authority.
19958 of 2005 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The dispute relates to the assessment year 1984 85.
