High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Bhola Nath & Sons v. Commissioner of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 124 of 2000  RD-AH 701 (1 September 2004)
Court no. 55
Trade Tax Revision no. 124 of 2000.
M/S Bhola Nath & Sons, Pratapgarh .........................Applicant.
Commissioner of Trade Tax U. P. Lucknow......................Revisionist.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), is directed against the order of Tribunal date 17.11.1999 relating to the assessment years 1994-95.
Applicant was engaged in the business of Food grains etc. Books of account of the applicant was rejected and turnover was estimated on the basis of survey dated 8.11.1994 in which stock of 125 bags of paddy, 25 bags of Wheat, 6 bags Oil-seed and 10 bags of Khali were found. Assessing Authority had issued a Show cause notice in respect of material found at the time of survey. In reply to the Show cause notice, applicant explained that 125 bags of Paddy belong to one Om Rice Udoyog, Babuganj, Kunda, Pratapgarh and it was kept in the house of partner Sri Prem Chandra. It was also mentioned that the copy of 6-R was enclosed and with regard to the Food grains and Oil-seed, it was stated that it was purchased by Jaiswal Traders and in respect of the said purchase, 6-R alleged to have been enclosed alongwith the reply to the Show cause notice. In the order of Assessing Authority it is stated that the copy of 6 R was not filed. Disbelieving the explanation of the applicant, Assessing Authority rejected the books of account and estimated taxable turnover at Rs.10,50,000/-. First appeal filed by the dealer was rejected. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed in part and the Tribunal has not sustained the order and estimated the taxable turnover at Rs.27,750/-.
Heard Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the estimate of turnover is arbitrary and excessive. He submitted that in reply to Show cause notice, it was explained that Paddy, Wheat and Khali which were found at the time of survey did not belong to the applicant. Learned Standing Counsel supported the order of Tribunal.
I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below. Admittedly survey dated 8.11.1994 was made at the business premises of M/S Bhola Nath & Sons, Kunda, Pratapgarh and at the time of survey, 125 bags of Paddy, 25 bags of Wheat, 6 bags of Oil-seed and 10 bags of Khali were found. Reply to the Show cause notice can not be accepted because in the reply, it was stated that the Paddy was found in the house of Sri
Prem Chandra while it was found at the business premises of the applicant. Applicant has also not produced 6-R relating to the goods. No reason was given as to why the goods belonging to the other Firms were lying at the shop of the applicant. I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal in disbelieving the explanation of the applicant. Estimate of turnover on the basis of stock found at the time of survey also can not be said to be arbitrary.
In the result, revision fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.