High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Khan Galla Bhandar v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 442 of 2000  RD-AH 2346 (13 February 2007)
Court no. 22
Trade Tax Revision no. 442 of 2000.
Trade Tax Revision no. 443 of 2000.
Khan Galla Bhandar, Basti. ... Revisionist.
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 the "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 14.02.2000 relating to the assessment years 1994-95 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act respectively.
Applicant was carrying on the business of Food-grains, Oil Seeds and Paddy etc and claimed to have carried on the business on its own account as well as on the Commission Agency. Applicant claimed to have made purchases of Wheat for Rs.7,33,250/- and Paddy for Rs.76,950/- for and on behalf of the Ex- U. P. Principal and claimed to have dispatched such goods outside the State of U. P. at the destination of Ex- U. P. Principal. Applicant claimed exemption on the purchases on the ground that the purchases were in the course of inter-State purchases. Applicant claimed that it had a small Rice Mill, on which, rice were manufactured on labour basis. The Assessing Authority rejected the claim of the applicant in respect of the purchases for and on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal and after rejecting the books of account on the basis of adverse material found at the time of survey dated 13.12.1994 and the goods checked during the road checking on 23.8.1994 and 31.8.1994 which were not found entered in the books of account. First appeals filed by the dealer were rejected. Being aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, applicant filed Second Appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed both the appeals in part.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the books of account have been illegally rejected and the turnover had been arbitrarily enhanced and the claim of purchases for and on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal have been wrongly rejected.
I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. At the time of road checking on 23.8.1994 and 31.8.1994, 130-130 bags Wheat and 5 bags Sarso were found to have been dispatched. Entry of such goods were not found entered in the books of account. At the time of survey dated 31.12.1994, partner Sri Nabi Sarvar was present. He told that at the time of making the purchases, it was not known that for whom, the purchases were made. 10 Quintals Paddy was found belonging to the applicant on its own account, therefore, it was held that the claim of the applicant that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal, was not correct. It was also held that 10 Quintals Paddy was of the applicant, therefore, the claim of the applicant that manufacturing of rice was made on labour basis, has not been accepted. Due to non entry of goods checked on 23.8.1994 and 31.8.1994 during the course of road checking, books of account were rejected and best judgment assessment has been made. Learned Counsel for the applicant is not able to show any material to dispute the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In the absence of any material to the contrary, finding of the Tribunal is the finding of fact, cannot be interfered. I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.
In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.