High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Khajanchi Prasad Goyal v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 312 of 2000  RD-AH 2973 (22 February 2007)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.312 OF 2000
M/s Khajanchi Prasad Goyal. ....Applicant
The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. .Opp.party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 31.12.1999 relating to the assessment year 1988-89.
On the basis of the information received by the assessing authority that the applicant had purchased 711 bags cement from M/s Bansal Udyog, notice under section 7(3) of the Act was issued. Before the assessing authority applicant denied to have carried on any business and had imported any goods from outside the State of U.P. Disbelieving the contention of the applicant, assessing authority estimated the turn over of imported cement at Rs.1 lac. Being aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, applicant filed appeal before Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Trade Tax, Bareilly. It appears that before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) applicant filed affidavit denying to had imported 711 bags cement and taken any delivery of 711 bags cement from Babgaula godown. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) dismissed the appeal of the applicant. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal applicant filed a certificate of the Superintendent Railway Station, Babrala dated 03.09.1996 in which it was certified that against builty no.247747 pili and lal mitti were delivered. Tribunal has not accepted the plea of the applicant on the ground that the applicant could not file any documents relating to the purchases in support of the claim that pili and lal mitti have been imported against the aforesaid builty.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had discharged its burden by furnishing a certificate of Superintendent Railway Station, Babrala that against builty no.247747 in the month of October, 1988 pili and lal mitti were delivered. He has also referred bill no.351 issued by M/s Rameshwar Prasad Ramchandra relating to the sale of pili and lal mitti.
I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. Before the assessing authority and first appellate authority applicant categorically denied to have imported 711 bags cement from outside the State of U.P. For the first time before the Tribunal, applicant pleaded a new case and admitted that he had imported 711 bags from outside the State of U.P. but submitted that instead of cement, lal and pili mitti were imported. Purchase bill of M/s Rameshwar Prasad Ramchandra has not been filed before the Tribunal. The plea that pili and lal mitti had been purchased from M/s Rameshwar Prasad Ramchandra against bill no.351 can not be accepted because the information received by the assessing authority reveals that cement was purchased from M/s Bansal Udyog, Satna. In view of the aforesaid facts, there appears to be no reason to interfere with 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.