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. Bajrang Enterprises, Badlapur v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1037 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 847 (23 March 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).


Court no.55


M/S Bajrang Enterprises, Jaunpur.             Applicant


Commissioner, 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 5th June,1997 relating to the assessment year 1989-1990.

Applicant was carrying on the business of steel pipe and agriculture implements and claimed to have maintained books of account in the regular course of business. During the year under consideration, applicant had disclosed total and taxable turnover at Rs. 8,15,245.42 p and Rs.3,29,459.02 p respectively. Assessing authority rejected the books of account and estimated the taxable turnover at Rs.4,50,000/-. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal which has also been rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has made wrong observations t with regard to the difference in the return version and book version. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that against Form 31 no.884191 goods for Rs.11,772/- had only been purchased which is verifiable from the bill which was also available at the time of the import of the goods and in Form 31 by mistake the figure 13772 has been mentioned and this fact is verifiable from the invoice.

I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.

Perusal of the assessment order shows that as per books of account, applicant has disclosed  gross turnover at Rs.8,15,245.42 p and net turnover at  Rs.3,29,449.021 p . In the return gross turnover was disclosed at Rs.7.26,708.22 p and net turnover of Rs.3,29,459.02 p. Assessing authority has drawn an adverse inference on the ground that initially in Form 82, taxable turnover was shown as Rs.4,12,089.31 p which has been cut out and Rs.3,29,459.02 p was mentioned, but no initial was made. Tribunal has referred in the order that there was a difference of Rs.9,524.65 p in taxable turnover and Rs.28,555.50 p in non taxable turnover and total difference comes at  Rs.38,080.13 p. This figure appears to have been wrongly mentioned by the Tribunal, therefore, it requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. Tribunal may also consider whether against Form 31 no.884191 goods for Rs.11,772/- was purchased against the invoice which is entered in the books of account or for Rs.13,772/-. If the invoice was also available along with Form 31 No.884191 at the time of the import of the goods and the value at Rs.11,772/- is verifiable from the invoice, no adverse inference should be drawn.

In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations 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.