High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Kisan Arhat Kendra v. The Sales Tax Commisioner - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 596 of 1991  RD-AH 2889 (15 September 2005)
Court no. 55
Sales Tax Revision no. 596 Of 1991.
M/S Kisan Arhat Kendra, Bareilly. ... Applicant.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ...Opposite Party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 14.02.1991 relating to the assessment year 1985-86 under the U. P. Sales Tax Act.
Applicant was carrying on the business of Gur and Dhan. Books of account of the applicant had been rejected on various grounds by the Assessing Authority, which has been up held in the First Appeal by the Tribunal. After the rejection of books of account, turnover has been enhanced. Against the estimate of turnover, present revision has been filed. There is no dispute about the rejection of books of account.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal on one hand estimated the suppressed taxable turnover of sale of Gur, but in another hand without any basis, made it double on the ground that in the earlier year, turnover has been estimated by taking it double to the disclosed turnover, is arbitrary. He further submitted that in the case of Dhan also without any basis disclosed turnover of purchases has been made double without any material of suppression. He further submitted that the sale of paddy to M/S Rajdhani Rice Mills at Rs.1,62,788.50 Paise has been illegally treated as suppressed sale while sale to M/S Rajdhani Rice Mills has been disclosed in the books of account, which has not been looked into. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of Tribunal.
I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below. I find force in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant. Enhancement of turnover by taking double to the disclosed turnover merely on the basis of earlier year, is unjustified. Turnover should be estimated on the basis of material available on record for the year under consideration. Any fixed formula on estimating the turnover, can not be adopted, therefore, Tribunal is directed to estimate the turnover of paddy and Gur afresh on the basis of material on record. There is also substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant that once the suppressed turnover of sale of Gur, estimated at 4 Lacs on the basis of material on record. There is no justification in making it double and to estimate the suppressed sale of Gur at Rs.8 Lacs. Tribunal may also consider this aspect of the matter. Tribunal may also examine the case of the applicant that the sale to M/S Rajdhani Rice Mills has been disclosed in the books of account and can not be treated as the suppressed sale.
In the result, revision is allowed. Order of Tribunal dated 14.2.1991 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of observations made above. Since the matter is quite old, Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.