High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S. Prince Perfumery Co. Nai Basti, Aligarh v. The Commissioner, Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 371 of 1999  RD-AH 438 (6 January 2006)
Court no. 55
Trade Tax Revision no. 371 Of 1999.
Trade Tax Revision no. 613 Of 1999.
M/S Prince Perfumery Company, Aligarh. ...Applicant Vs
The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow. ...Opp.party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
These two revisions under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 05.111998 relating to assessment year 1992-93 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.
Revision no. 371 of 1999 has been filed by the assessee and Revision no. 613 of 1999 has been filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax.
Applicant was carrying on the business of Dhoopbatti and Agarbatti. Dealer claimed that some of the goods were purchased within the State of U. P. and some of the goods were purchased from outside the State of U. P. The exemption on the sale of U. P. purchased goods had been claimed while the liability of tax on the goods purchased from outside the State of U. P., have been admitted. Assessing Authority had rejected the books of account and estimated the turnover at Rs.5 Lacs. Assessing Authority had also rejected the claim of exemption on the so called U. P. purchased Agarbatti on the ground that it had been admitted by the dealer that within the State of U. P., Oil, Loose Agarbatti, Perfume and Dhoop (raw) were purchased and thereafter dipped into the scent and sold in the form of Agarbatti. It had been treated as manufactured Agarbatti. Assessing Authority had also treated Dhoop and Dhoop Agarbatti as a two different items and accordingly levied tax. In First Appeal, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim of exemption on the so called U.P. purchased goods. However, claim of dealer that the Dhoop and Dhoopbatti are the same item, has not been accepted. Dealer as well as Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal vide impugned order, accepted the claim of the dealer that Dhoop and Dhoopbatti are one and same and accordingly allowed the exemption on the turnover of Dhoopbatti. Tribunal found that the dealer had not maintained the books of account properly and the turnover has to be estimated by way of best judgment assessment Tribunal further held that one of the partner Sri Sachchidanand s/o Sri Hirday Lal in his statement dated 24.1.1996 stated that within the State of U. P., they have purchased Oil, Loose Agarbatti, Perfume and Dhoop (raw) and such Agarbatti are dipped into scent and were sold and exemption on such Agarbatti was claimed. Tribunal held that out of the goods purchased within the State of U. P., Agarbatti had been manufactured and accordingly exemption on the sale of such Agarbatti has been denied. Tribunal after denying the claim on the sale of Agarbatti which have been manufactured out of U. P. purchased goods, by way of best judgment assessment, estimated the taxable turnover of self manufactured Agarbatti at Rs.4,32,000/-.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel for the dealer submitted that the Tribunal has erred in denying the exemption on the turnover of Agarbatti, which according to him, was the U. P. purchased. He further submitted that the estimate of turnover is arbitrary and excessive. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the estimate of turnover at Rs.5 Lacs has to be restored and the Tribunal has illegally reduced the turnover to Rs.4,32,000/-.
I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below. I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. The estimate of turnover is based on the material on record and is concluded by the finding of fact. In order to reject the claim of exemption on the U. P. purchased so called Agarbatti, Tribunal held that the dealer had manufactured the Agarbatti out of the U. P. purchased goods. Tribunal referred the statement of one of the partner Sri Sachchidanand s/o Sri Hirday Lal dated 24.1.1996, in which, he had admitted that within the State of U. P. Oil, Loose Agarbatti, Perfume and Dhoop (raw) were purchased and they were dipped into the Scent and have been sold. On the basis of statement, Tribunal has rightly inferred that the dealer had manufactured the Agarbatti out of the U. P. purchased goods and such Agarbatti is liable to tax.
In the result, both the revisions fail, and are, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.