Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S HEERA LAL VINOD KUMAR versus COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Heera Lal Vinod Kumar v. Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 275 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14693 (30 August 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court no.22

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 275 of 2007.

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 279 of 2007.

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 280 of 2007.

M/S Hira Lal Vinod Kumar, Mirzapur. Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. Opp.Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present three revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 7th September, 2001 relating to the assessment year, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88.

The applicant was registered dealer and was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of metal ingot. For the assessment years, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 the applicant had disclosed taxable turnover at Rs.19,71, 005/-, Rs.49,99,637/- and Rs.32, 28, 127.24 paise. The assessing authority rejected the books of account and by way of best judgment assessment, estimate the taxable turnover at Rs.21, 05, 000/-, Rs.52,00,000/- and Rs. 36,00, 000/- respectively. The books of account have been rejected mainly on the ground that the applicant being manufacturer, had not maintained any manufacturing account as required under section 12 (2) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the assessment orders, applicant filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 22.11.1990 allowed all the three appeals and accepted the books of account and disclosed turnover. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) held that the dealer had furnished the details of the raw material used and the goods manufactured in which no defect was found. First appellate authority also considered the case of the applicant that it was not possible to maintain the books of account at every stage of production because there are number of stages. It has also been held that the books of account have been accepted in the previous years. Being aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed all the appeals and restored the order of the first appellate authority. Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Versus M/S Girja Shanker Awanish Kumar reported in 1997 UPTC, 213 has held that non-maintenance of manufacturing account under section 12 (2) of the Act was a technical defect and it leads to the best judgment assessment, accordingly, Tribunal has restored the order of the assessing authority estimating the turnover by way of best judgment assessment.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had maintained books of account in the same form as have been maintained in the previous years and the books of account has been accepted in the previous years. He further submitted that the details of the raw material consumed and the goods manufactured have also been furnished and no defect has been found, therefore, the acceptance of the books of account and disclosed turnover by the first appellate authority is wholly justified.

Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Versus M/S Girja Shanker Awanish Kumar (supra) and submitted that the estimate of the turnover by way of best judgment assessment is not illegal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.

Admittedly, the applicant has not maintained the manufacturing account in accordance to Section 12 (2) of the Act. Merely because in the previous years for non-maintenance of manufacturing account, books of account has been accepted the claim of the applicant for acceptance of the books of account cannot be accepted in the years under consideration. The Apex Court held as follows:

"The keeping of a stock register, especially in the case of manufacturer, is of great importance. It is a means of verifying the assessee's account by having a quantitative tally. Section 12 (2) of the Act mandates the dealer to maintain stock books in respect of raw materials as well as product obtained at every stage of production. If such a stock book is not maintained, it leads to the conclusion that the account books are not reliable or that particulars are not properly verifiable. If the account books are rejected, the turnover has to be determined to the best of judgment of the assessing authority concerned. We are unable to uphold the view that a defect in non-maintenance of stock register is only technical and so the turnover disclosed in the account books should be accepted. On the facts of a particular case, it is for the assessment authority to consider along with other materials disclosed in the case, to what extent the account books can be relied on for determining the turnover. In normal circumstances, the rejection of account books call for the estimation of the turnover to the best of judgment of the assessing authority. Having upheld that the account books of the assessee were liable to be rejected, the learned Judge of the High Court was wrong in holding that the defect is of a technical nature and the account books should be accepted. We set aside the decision of the High Court and direct that the estimated turnover of the dealer as upheld in appeal, shall stand restored. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revisions and are liable to be dismissed.

In the result, all the three revisions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated.30.08.2007.

VS.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.