Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S MUNNA LAL SONS & CO. PVT. LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Munna Lal Sons & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 876 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 469 (9 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.  876  of 2000.

M/S Munna Lal Sons & Co., Kannauj. ... 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 30.05.2000 relating to the assessment year 1997-98 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.

Applicant was carrying in the business of manufacture and sales of Sandal Wood Oil and Perfumery.  The Assessing Authority had rejected the books of account mainly on account of non-maintenance of manufacturing account under Section 12 (2) of the Act and difference in stock found at the time of survey dated 23.7.1997.  Claim of job work had also been rejected and it was treated as inter-State sales.  The Assessing Authority had estimated the suppressed sales at Rs.75 Lacs on the purchases and also levied the tax under Section 3-AAAA of the Act at Rs.3 Lacs.  In First Appeal, the turnover of suppressed sales were reduced to Rs.30 Lacs.  Being aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, applicant filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal has sustained the books of account and estimated the suppressed turnover at Rs.20 Lacs.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has estimated the suppressed sales mainly on the ground of non-maintenance of manufacturing account under Section 12 (2) of the Act, and difference in the stock found at the time of survey.  He submitted that both under the U. P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act Rs.20 Lacs were estimated towards the suppressed sales.  He submitted that the Trade Tax Revision no. 877 of 2000 filed against the order under the Central Sales Tax Act has been allowed by this Court on 26.7.2002 and the disclosed turnover had been accepted.  Learned Standing Counsel submitted that a huge difference at Rs.16 Lacs was found in the stock at the time of survey dated 23.7.1997 and inasmuch as, the applicant had not maintained the manufacturing account under Section 12 (2) of the Act.  He submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow versus M/S Girja Shankar Awanish Kumar reported in 1997 UPTC page 213, held that non-maintenance of manufacturing account under Section 12 (2) of the Act, is not a technical default and the books of account is liable to be rejected and the turnover has to be estimated on the basis of best judgment assessment.  He submitted that this Court while deciding the revision under the Central Sales Tax Act has not considered the decision of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow versus M/S Girja Shankar Awanish Kumar (supra), therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said decision.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  

The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow versus M/S Girja Shankar Awanish Kumar (supra), held that non-maintenance of manufacturing account is not a technical default and the books of account is liable to be rejected and the turnover has to be estimated on the basis of best judgment assessment.  The Tribunal has not accepted the explanation of the dealer with regard to the difference in the stock found at the time of survey dated 23.7.1997.  Before this Court also, the applicant is not able to explain the differences in the stock found at the time of survey.  In this view of the matter, rejection of books of account is up held.  

No reliance case can be placed on the decision of this Court in the case of dealer in Trade Tax Revision no. 877 of 2000 under the Central Sales Tax Act held because in the said case, the decision of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow versus M/S Girja Shankar Awanish Kumar (supra) has not been considered, inasmuch as,  there was a difference in the stock found at the time of survey.  However, the Tribunal has not given any basis for estimating the suppressed sales at Rs.20 Lacs.  In this view of the matter, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the issue of quantum of turnover afresh.  The Tribunal may consider the suppression and the other material on record and estimate the turnover by way of best judgment assessment.

In the result, revision is allowed in part.  Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of observations made above.

Dt:09.01.2007.

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.