High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Mahavir Singh Narain Singh Khair v. Commissioner Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 17 of 1996  RD-AH 1243 (28 October 2004)
Court no. 55
Trade Tax Revision no. (17) of 1996.
Trade Tax Revision no. (18) of 1996.
M/S Mahavir Singh Narain Singh Khair, Aligarh. ...Revisionist.
Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ... Respondent.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
These two revisions under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 22.6.1996 relating to assessment year 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively.
Applicant claimed that it had started business of Food grains, Oil-seeds and Cattle Fodder from 25.5.92 and closed its business with effect from 31.12.1992 in respect of which information was given on 22.1.1993. However, at the time of assessment proceeding, it was accepted that the business of Cattle Fodder had only been carried on which was exempted from tax. Assessing Authority estimated the turnover for the assessment year 1992-93 and 1993-94 on the basis of survey dated 15.10.1992 and survey dated 8.3.1994. At the time of survey dated 15.10.92 one 6-R no. 37659 dated 7.6.1992 relating to purchase of Wheat at Rs.3,832/- was found and for which, sale at Rs.3,986.40 Paise was admitted and at the time of survey dated 8.3.1994, 2 bags of Laha was found inside the room and 10 bags of Laha were also found outside the Shop. He explained that they were belonged to Khem Singh and Atul Trading Company which was not accepted. Assessing Authority estimated the turnover for the assessment year 1992-93 and 1993-94 at Rs.7,00,000/- and 28,50,000/- respectively. First Appellate Authority had reduced the turn over to Rs.2,10,000/- and Rs.2,40,000/- respectively. Against the order of First Appellate Authority, applicant as well as Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal vide impugned order, rejected the appeal of the applicant and has partly allowed the appeal of Commissioner of Trade Tax. Tribunal has estimated the turnover for the assessment year 1992-93 at Rs.5,00,000/- and for the assessment year 1993-94 at Rs. 15,00,000/-.
Heard Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the explanation of the applicant that Laha which were found inside and outside the shop belonged to Khem Singh and Atul Trading Company. Leaned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the estimate of turnover is arbitrary.
I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below. I do not agree with the submissions of learned Counsel for the applicant that Laha found at the time of survey belonged to Khem Singh and Atul Trading Company. In this respect, no evidence was led by the applicant, inasmuch as, rejection of explanation is not unjustified. So far as estimate of turnover, I find force in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant. Tribunal has not given any basis for interfering with the turnover estimated by the First Appellate Authority. Looking to the facts that at the time of survey dated 15.10.1992, only material found was purchase of food grains at Rs.3832/- and at the time of survey dated 8.3.1994, 12 bags Laha were found. Estimate of turnover fixed by the First Appellate Authority, appears to be reasonable and there was no reason for enhancing the turnover.
In the result, both the revisions are allowed in part. Order of Tribunal dated 22.6.1996 is set aside and the order of First Appellate Authority is restored.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.