TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 1987-88, 754 of 1993 for the assessment year 1988-89 and 756 of 1993 for the assessment year 1989-90 whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has dismissed all the three second appeals preferred by the dealer who is applicant in these revisions. The applicant is a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and was granted licence for sale of levy cement under the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anding Counsel submits that the applicant could not produce relevant account books for verification before the authority concerned and, therefore, they were justified to frame best judgment assessment order. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that a licensee under the U.P. Cement Control Order is required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Instead of original, a duplicate stock register was sought to be produced. The authority below, however, refused to place any reliance on the duplicate stock register and in my view, rightly as the dealer could not explain as to how the duplicate stock register was got prepared. Besides the above, other documents, such as, purchase vouchers, etc., were not produced before the authority below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al are essentially findings of fact based on appreciation of material on record. The apex court in Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Mohan Brickfield [2006] 148 STC 638; [2007] 1 UPTC 1 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kumaon Tractors Motors [2002] 9 SCC 379 has held that this court possesses limited jurisdiction under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The jurisdiction is limited to the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
