Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S/S.HINDUSTAN BOOT HOUSE versus COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S/S.Hindustan Boot House v. Commissioner Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 130 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 5336 (8 November 2005)

 

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

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.130 OF 1999

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.131 OF 1999

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.132 OF 1999

S/S Hindustan Boot House. ....Applicant

Versus

Commissioner, Trade Tax. ....Opp. Party

***************

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These three revisions under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 25.11.1998 for the assessment years 1993-94, 94-95 and 95-96.

Applicant was carrying on the business of chappal and shoes. The business was carried on during the period 24.11.1993 to 25.06.1995 for which there is no dispute. Applicant had not maintained any books of account.  It was claimed that chappal and shoes were purchased within the State of U.P. and they have not been imported from outside the State of U.P. However, the information has been received by the assessing authority from the Railway Station, Sirathu about the import of chappal and shoes from Delhi. The information gives the details of the cartoons for each year the name of consignor and consignee Shri Rajesh Kumar. The name of the Proprietor of the applicant is also Shri Rajesh Kumar. For the assessment years 1993-94 and 94-95 assessing authority passed the ex-parte assessment orders and for the assessment year 1995-96 applicant participated in the assessment proceeding and after hearing the applicant assessment order was passed. On the basis of the information received from Railway Station, Sirathu assessing authority inferred that the applicant had imported chappals and shoes and accordingly, turn over of imported chappals and shoes were estimated at Rs.10 lacs, Rs.2 lacs and Rs.5 lacs  for the assessment years 1993-94, 94-95 and 95-96 respectively. Applicant filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), which were rejected.  Applicant further filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeal for the assessment year 1993-94 and partly allowed the appeals for the assessment years 1994-95 and 95-96.  Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the impugned order dated 25.11.1998 has been subsequently rectified by the Tribunal under section 22 of the Act and the appeal for the assessment year 1993-94 was allowed in part and the appeal for the assessment year 1994-95 has been dismissed and appeal for the assessment year 1995-96 has been allowed in part. Tribunal has estimated taxable turn over for the assessment years 1993-94 at Rs.6 lacs and for the assessment year 1995-96 at Rs.6 lacs and turn over estimated at Rs.12 lacs for the assessment year 1994-95 has been confirmed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the information received from the Railway Station, Sirathu was vague and it could not be connected with the applicant. He submitted that in the absence of further enquiry  from the Railway Station, Sirathu as to whom delivery of the good was given, the said information has been illegally connected with the applicant. He submitted that the applicant was  having a small shop, carrying on the business in a small town of Sirathu of U.P. purchased goods and there was no evidence of  making any purchase from outside the State of U.P. He submitted that during the course of assessment proceeding for the assessment year 1995-96, applicant had filed a  bill issued by the Delhi party in favour of Asha Enterprises, Nakkhas Kohna, Allahbad relating to 3 bundles weighing 140 Kg. for the value at Rs.4,214.76p as a example for the estimate of turn over. He submitted that  this evidence has been referred by the Tribunal in its order but has not been considered while estimating the turn over and the value of Rs.15,000/- per cartoon had been illegally estimated by the assessing authority. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid fact estimate of the turn over is arbitrary. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of Tribunal.

I have perused the order of Tribunal.

Admittedly, applicant is carrying on the business of chappal and shoes for which no account books have been maintained. The applicant claimed that he had not purchased any goods from outside the State of U.P. and had purchased the goods only within the State of U.P. but has not given any evidence to controvert the information, which related to import of chappals and shoes from Delhi. The information was admittedly in the name of Proprietor of the applicant. In the information Shri Rajesh Kumar was shown as consignee and consignor. Therefore, there appears to be no error in treating the said information relating to the applicant business. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant in this regard has no substance and accordingly, rejected.

So far as second submission relating to the estimate of turn over is concerned, I find substance in it. Perusal of the assessment order for the assessment year 1995-96 shows that bill of Delhi party, issued in the name of M/s Asha Enterprises, Nakkhas Kohna, Allahabad  was filed as a example which relates to 3 cartoons weighing 140 Kg. Value of Rs.4,214.76p. This bill has also been referred  by the Tribunal in its order but the Tribunal has not considered this evidence while estimating the turn over. Perusal of the assessment order shows that no basis has been given for estimating, the value of 1 cartoon at Rs.15,000/-.  In the circumstances, order of the Tribunal so far as estimate of the turn over is concerned, is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

In the result, all the three revisions are allowed in part. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to re-determine the turn over in accordance to the law on the basis of the material available on record after giving the opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Dt.08.11.2005

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.