TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ambit and scope of the "goods" as per the definition as given under section 2(d) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The controversy, which is involved in the present case comes under the category of estimation done by the authorities under the Trade Tax Act, hence in view of the fact stated hereinabove no interference is required in the order passed by the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 10-2-2010 - ANIL KUMAR , J. ANIL KUMAR J. Heard Sri Ratnesh Chandra holding brief of Dipak Seth, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sajay Sareen, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. The brief facts of the case as stated by learned counsel for the revisionist are that Sri Chandramani Kant Singh, revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s dismissed by the order dated March 17, 1990. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner had filed a second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench III, Lucknow (Second Appeal No. 511 of 1990 (198283)) which was dismissed by order dated March 14, 2001. Aggrieved by the order dated March 14, 2001 the present revision was filed by the revisionist before this court under section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 on the following questions of law: (1) Whether selling of standing green trees by the revisionist by way of auction amounts to selling of timber or wood within the meaning of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and liable to trade tax? (2) Whether if in the felling permission granted by the D.F.O. in respect of several ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as given under section 38(a) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and thus trees, which were sold by him fall within the definition of goods as given in section 2(d) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, so the order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly valid and in accordance with law and needs no interference. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, the controversy, which is involved is whether the land which of the revisionist comes within the ambit and scope of definition of forest as given under section 38(a) of the Indian Forest Act or not. From perusal of the judgment passed by the Tribunal under challenge in the revision it is clear, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de Tax [2010] 33 VST 213 (All); [2008] UPTC 1050 this court has held that: The assessing authority as also the Tribunal have considered the material on record in arriving at the finding of not accepting the account books and making an estimation of turnover which are pure finding of fact not warranting any interference in revisional jurisdiction. The findings recorded by the assessing authority and the Tribunal are not without basis and, therefore, do not warrant any interference. In the case of New Plaza Restaurant v. Income-tax Officer [2009] 309 ITR 259 (HP) and in the case of Zora Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2008] 296 ITR 104 (P H) the court has observed the estimation is a question of fact. The said view was further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
