Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in rejecting the assessee's claim under section 4A without properly considering the architect's valuation report and the assessment orders relied upon to show that the unit's investment was below the prescribed limit and that manufacturing activity had not ceased for more than six months.
Analysis: The material on record showed that the Tribunal noticed the later valuation report but did not give any reason for rejecting it. The evidence relating to the actual factory area and the nature of the unit required independent consideration, especially because the earlier valuation had proceeded on a larger tract of land. The assessment orders for consecutive years were also relevant to the question whether the unit had remained closed for the requisite period, yet they were not considered while recording the finding against the assessee. The order, therefore, suffered from non-consideration of material evidence.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's order could not be sustained and was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after giving the assessee an opportunity to establish its case on the existing record and the material produced in the revision.