High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Seth Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 335 of 1995  RD-AH 949 (29 September 2004)
Court no. 55.
Trade Tax Revision No. 335 of 1995.
Trade Tax Revision No. 336 of 1995.
M/S Seth Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
These two revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 2nd February,1995 for the assessment year,1991-92,both under U.P. Trade Tax and Central Sales Tax Act.
The applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Neel. Assessing Authority rejected the books of account and enhanced the turn over. First appeal filed by the applicant was allowed in part. The applicant as well as Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected all the appeals by the impugned order.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The Tribunal has confirmed the rejection of the books of account on the ground that the applicant has not maintained the manufacturing account in accordance to Section 12 (2) of the Act. Tribunal observed that in the manufacturing of Neel RBOZ is also manufactured, but no account relating to this goods was maintained and the manufacturing account at every stage of production has not been maintained. Tribunal further observed that at the time of survey dated 11.12.1991 purchase day book was found written up to 7.11.1991and the cash book was retained upto 31st October, 1991. Bill book and challan book etc., were also not produced for verification and the manufactured goods were told to have been kept in excise godown, but the same was not shown for verification on the ground that the key of the godown was with the accountant. On the aforesaid ground, the Tribunal rejected the books of account. I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.
So far as the enhancement of the turn over is concerned, my view it is not justified. Tribunal found that the production shown by the applicant in the year under consideration was almost the same as shown in the earlier year. It was also found that no suppression was found in coal consumption and the raw material purchased by the applicant. First Appellate Authority also recorded the finding that there was no material of suppression of record. It is settled principle of law that even after rejecting the books of account, it is not always necessary to enhance the turn over by making best judgment assessment. If no material of suppression was found the disclosed turn over is not necessarily to be rejected and enhanced. First Appellate Authority as well as Tribunal recorded categorical finding that there was no suppression in respect of purchase and consumption of coal and raw material and the production was also reasonable as was shown in the earlier year. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no reason to enhance the turn over and is liable to be accepted, both under U.P. Trade Tax and Central Sales Tax Act.
In the result, the revisions are allowed in part Rejection of the books of account is upheld, but the disclosed turn over, both under U.P. Trade Tax and Central Sales Tax Act are accepted
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.