High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner, Trade Tax Lko. v. S/S Daya Prakash Hari Kishan - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 607 of 1999  RD-AH 3466 (14 February 2006)
Court no. 55
Trade Tax Revision no. 607 Of 1999.
The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ... Applicant.
M/S Daya Prakash Hari Kishan, Meerut. ... Opp. Party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 23.01.1999 relating to assessment year 1982-83 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.
A proceeding under Section 21 of the Act had been initiated on the basis of information received from S. T. O. (SIB) that the dealer had made interstate sales of Gur for Rs.1,47,061.42 to M/S Beharilal Ram Gopal, Ranchi during the period 1.4.1982 to 17.12.1982. Dealer denied to have made any such transactions. Assessing Authority, however, had not accepted the plea of the dealer and estimated the escaped turnover at Rs.1,50,000/-. First appeal filed by the dealer was rejected. Dealer filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, dealer submitted that the Trade Tax Officer, Sector-5 who had issued notice had no jurisdiction to issue notice. It has also been submitted that an opportunity of cross-examination had not been given to the dealer. Tribunal accepted both the aforesaid plea of the dealer and quashed the order under Section 21 of the Act.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the question of jurisdiction had not been raised before the Assessing Authority and had raised for the first time before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, in view of Section 6 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, the Tribunal has erred in entertaining the said objection. He further submitted that the information, which was received from S. T. O. (SIB), was duly confronted by the Assessing Authority and no evidence of its denial was filed. He also submitted that an opportunity of cross-examination had not been sought by the dealer, therefore, there was no question to allow the dealer for cross-examination.
So far as, the first submission of the learned Standing Counsel is concerned, learned Counsel for the dealer has not contested. Learned Counsel for the dealer, however, submitted that it is not clear from the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below that whether an opportunity of cross-examination was sought by the dealer or not and whether the documents were confronted or not and what reply was filed by the dealer in this regard.
I find substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. Section 6 of the Act says that no objection as to the territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction of any Assessing Authority shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revising Authority or the Tribunal unless such objection was taken before the Assessing Authority at the earliest possible opportunity. Admittedly, objection of the jurisdiction had not been raised before the Assessing Authority, which could have been raised by the dealer. Thus, the Tribunal has erred in entertaining the objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the officer in issuing the notice. So far as, the view of Tribunal that adverse inference drawn by the Assessing Authority without giving opportunity of cross-examination is concerned, it is not clear whether the dealer had sought for opportunity of cross-examination or not and what reply was filed when the information was confronted by the Assessing Authority. This aspect of the matter, in my opinion, requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. Tribunal may examine this aspect of the matter.
In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of observations made above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.