Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S GOPI NATH GUPTA versus THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s Gopi Nath Gupta v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1076 of 1992 [2003] RD-AH 424 (4 November 2003)

 

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.55

SALES TAX REVISION NO.1076 OF 1992

M/s Gopi Nath Gupta ....Applicant

Versus

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

.........

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

This revision is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 06.02.1992 relating to the assessment year 1984-85.

The applicant was carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of bricks and claimed to have maintained books of account in the form of rokar khata, sale register, pathai, bharai, and nikasi registers, stock register and coal register, cash memo and according to which the disclosed total and taxable turn over at Rs.1,70,345/-. Assessing authority had rejected the books of account and estimated the turn over of bricks at Rs.4,29,000/- and turn over of coal at Rs.24,300/-. First appeal, filed by the applicant was allowed in part. First appellate authority had estimated the turn over of bricks at Rs.3,34,800/-. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been allowed in part. Tribunal has sustained the rejection of books of account but has reduced the taxable turn over to Rs.3,45,600/-. Being aggrieved by the order, applicant filed present revision.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Tribunal has rejected the books of account on the ground that at the time of survey dated 02.05.1984, 19.02.1985 and 19.03.1985 pathai, bharai and nikasi registers were not produced though manufacturing activities were going on. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that at the time of survey whatever accounts were demanded for signature, same were produced. Survey reports do not show that pathai, bharai and nikasi registers were demanded and were not produced. Supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing the copies of the survey reports. Copy of the survey report shows that at the time of survey dated 02.05.1984 rokar, coal register, cash memo, sale register, bricks stock register were signed.  There is nothing in the survey report, which shows that pathai, bharai and nikasi registers were demanded and were not produced. At the time of survey dated 23.06.1984 cash memo, bricks stock register, coal registers were signed. There is nothing in the survey report to show that pathai, bharai and nikasi registers were demanded and were not produced. Likewise, at the time of survey dated 19.02.1985 rokar register, sale register and cash memo were signed and there is nothing to show that pathai, bharai and nikasi registers were specifically demanded and were not produced. It is not disputed that during the course of assessment proceedings, pathai, bharai and nikasi registers were produced and examined alongwith other books of account. No defect was found in the books of account. No discrepancy has been pointed out to have been found at the time of surveys in respect of firing period etc. In the case of M/s Devi Prasad Mittal Sarraf, Meerganj, Allahabad Vs. Sales Tax Commissioner, U.P. reported in 1973 UPTC, 522. The Division Bench of this Court held that the  books of account should not be rejected lightly unless books of account is not properly maintained or there is material of suppression of turn over. In the case of Paramount Trading Corporation Vs. CST, reported in 1976 UPTC, 245,  K.K.Sugar Works Vs. CST, reported in 1988, UPTC, 1090. It has been held that merely because the books of account have not been produced at the time of survey, the books of account can not be rejected. Under Section 13 of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of survey officer to make the enquiry and to demand the necessary accounts. In case, if particular books of account have not been demanded or signed, it is not obligatory on the part of dealer to produce the same or insist for signature.

For the reasons stated above, in my view the rejection of books of account is not justified and the same is accordingly accepted.

In the result, the revision is allowed. Order of Tribunal dated 06.02.1992 is set aside and the books of account is accepted. Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate order under Section 11 (8) of the Act.

Dt.04.11.2003

R./


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.