Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Mansoori Traders v. Commissioner Trade Tax Up Lko. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 393 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 6571 (29 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).




M/s Masoori Traders.        ....Applicant


The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. .Opp.party


Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 06.04.1999 relating to the assessment year 1994-95.

Applicant was involved in the business of paddy and wheat. Books of account of the applicant was rejected on the basis of documents seized at the time of survey dated 23.01.1995 made by the STO (SIB). Assessing authority had estimated the suppressed purchases of paddy and wheat at Rs.20 lacs. Assessing authority had also levied the tax on the sale of food grain of Rs.41,650/- in the absence of requisite form. First appeal filed by the applicant was allowed in part. First appellate authority has upheld the rejection of books of account but has reduced the suppressed turn over to Rs.10 lacs. Before the first appellate authority, applicant could not filed requisite forms. Applicant as well as Commissioner of Trade Tax filed second appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeal of the applicant and has allowed the appeal of the Commissioner of Trade Tax. Tribunal has restored the estimate of the suppressed turn over at Rs.20 lacs as estimated by the assessing authority. Before the Tribunal, applicant filed 2 Form 3-B amounting to Rs.11,900/- and Rs.29,750/- but it appears that no application under section 12-B of the Act was filed for the admission of the aforesaid Form 3-B, thus, forms have not been admitted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has illegally restored the estimate of the suppressed purchases at Rs.20 lacs as estimated by the assessing authority. He submitted that no basis has been given by the assessing authority for the estimate of the turn over. He submitted that on the basis of the seized documents, it was found that during the period 21.01.1995 to 23.01.1995 purchases of paddy at Rs.31,200/- was suppressed and on that basis per day suppressed turn over between Rs.10,000 to 11,000/- has been estimated and on that basis, estimate of turn over at Rs.20 lacs has been held justified.  He submitted that the business of paddy is seasonal business for the period of November to January and, therefore, the estimate of turn over is arbitrary. He further submitted that the 2 forms, which have been filed before the Tribunal should be accepted, inasmuch as they have been received from the party concerned after the order passed by the first appellate authority.  Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.

Admittedly, the applicant could not filed the application under section 12-B of the Act for the acceptance of the alleged Form 3-B. Tribunal, no doubt has power to accept the forms as additional evidence under section 12-B of the Act but for the admission of form, application should be moved with the request to admit the form with requisite reasons. Since the application under section 12-B of the Act has not been filed and no reason has been given for not filing of the said forms before the authorities below. Thus, I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal in not giving the benefit of the 2 Form 3-B. However, I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the estimate of suppressed turn over  of Rs.20 lacs is without any basis.  Suppressed turn over of Rs.31,200/-  during the period 21.01.1995 to 23.01.1995 related to the purchases of paddy. The business of paddy is seasonal business.  Thus while estimating the turn over for  whole year, Tribunal should have consider this aspect of the matter, which has not been considered. Thus, in my opinion, issue with regard to the estimate of turn over requires reconsideration.

In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the mater is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observation made above.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.