Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S PRAKASH ENTERPRISES versus THE COMMISSIONER OF U.P. TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Prakash Enterprises v. The Commissioner Of U.P. Trade Tax, Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 7 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 388 (8 January 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 OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 22

Trade Tax Revision no.  7  of 2007.

M/S Prakash Enterprises, Saharanpur. ... Revisionist.

Vs

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 the Tribunal dated 03.08.2006 relating to the assessment year 1997-98 under the Central Sales Tax Act.

Applicant was involved in the business of Timber.  During the year under consideration, applicant claimed to have maintained books of account in the regular course of business and made sales only outside the State of U. P. either through the Commission Agent or directly by way of inter-State-sales.  The total taxable inter-State-sales was disclosed at Rs.2,17,850/- and stock transfer for Rs.3,35,540/-.  The Assessing Authority had rejected the books of account and estimated the total inter-State-sales at Rs.6,99,473/-.  Being aggrieved by the assessment order, applicant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Saharanpur.  The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Saharanpur vide order dated 22.12.2001, allowed the appeal and accepted the books of account and the disclosed turnover.  The Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed the appeal in part and estimated the suppressed sales at Rs.2 Lacs and levied the additional tax at Rs.30,000/-.

Heard Sri Devendra Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that during the year under consideration, applicant had cancelled the three bills no.390 dated 29.4.1997, 396 and 397 dated Nil and 28.7.1997 respectively and the original copies as well as the second copies of the bills were produced for perusal before the Assessing Authority as well as before the First Appellate Authority.  He submitted that the bill no. 395 dated 10.7.1997 was not cancelled, but it was modified and necessary entries were made in the books of account at page nos. 3 and 5 respectively.  He further submitted that the return for the months of April, May were revised and sales were shown alongwith the return for the month of June disclosing the sale at Rs.1,91,858.50.   He further submitted that the applicant had made purchases for Rs.1,47,370/- from unregistered dealer.  In respect of purchases, memos were prepared and the entries were made in the books of account and such Timber were dispatched outside the State of U. P. to its Consignment Agent for sale and in respect of which, Form-F was furnished and the sale of such Timber were included in the amount of Rs.3,34,690/- which relates to the stock transfer accepted by the Assessing Authority.  On these facts, it has been submitted that observation of the Tribunal that the original copies as well as the second copies of bills, which were claimed to have filed before the First Appellate Authority, are not available in the file of the First Appellate Authority, is incorrect.  He submitted that the original copies as well as the second copies of the bills were only produced for perusal and they were not filed, therefore, there was no question for being available in the file.  He submitted that the Tribunal has not demanded the original copies as well as the second copies of the bills.  He submitted that the Tribunal has drawn adverse inference for the purchases of Rs.1,47,370/- made from unregistered dealer, though, the goods purchased from unregistered dealer were the stock transferred which were accepted.  He further submitted that there was no material for the suppressed inter-State-sales at Rs. 2 Lacs. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.

I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant.  Perusal of order of the Tribunal shows that the issue has not been adjudicated properly and correct facts has not been considered.  Perusal of order of the First Appellate Authority and the assessment order shows that the original copies as well as the second copies of the cancelled bills were produced for perusal and have not been filed, therefore, there was no question for being available in the file.  The observations of the Tribunal that the original copies as well as the second copies of the bills are not available in the file of the First Appellate Authority is not justified.  Further, there is nothing to suggest that the Tribunal demanded the original copies as well as the second copies of the cancelled bills and the same were not produced.  In any view of the matter, applicant is prepare to produce the original copies as well as the second copies of the bills before the Tribunal.  The perusal of order of the Tribunal shows that it has not considered that the goods purchased from unregistered dealer were the stock transferred and the same have been accepted by the Assessing Authority.  Merely because, in the returns for the months of April and May Nil turnover were disclosed and subsequently such returns were revised, inference of the suppressed turnover cannot be drawn.  In this view of the matter, order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of observations made above.

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.

Dt:08.01.2007.

MZ/-


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.