High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner Trade Tax Lucknow v. S.S. Palki Food Products ? - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1877 of 2004  RD-AH 12724 (1 August 2006)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1877 OF 2004
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1879 OF 2004
The Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow. ....Applicant
S/s Palki Food Products, Mathura. .Opp.party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 05.02.2004 relating to the assessment year 1997-98 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and under Central Sales Tax Act.
Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was engaged in the business of pan masala etc. and had made the purchases of supari from M/s Ram Singh Mukesh Kumar, Sirsaganj. Assessing authority received the information from S.T.O. (S.I.B.) that in the survey made at the premises of M/s Ram Singh Mukesh Kumar, Sirsaganj certain documents were found, which reveals the payment of Rs.18,00,197/- made by the present dealer during the period 03.07.1997 to 01.12.1997 and the purchase of 60 bags of supari for Rs.19,85,561/- during the period 04.07.1997 to 10.01.1998. The entries of the said payment and purchases were not found entered in the books of account. On being confronted, the dealer asked for the opportunity of the cross-examination of M/s Ram Singh Mukesh Kumar, Sirsaganj. However, the assessing authority without giving opportunity drawn an adverse inference and passed the assessment order. Against the said order, dealer filed appeals. In appeals, matter was remanded back to the assessing authority with the direction to allow the opportunity of the cross-examination to the dealer. It appears that in pursuance thereof notices were sent under Rule 75 to the said party. The said party did not turn up for verification and cross-examination. Assessing authority, however, in the absence of opportunity of the cross-examination and confrontation to the documents drawn adverse inference and enhanced the turn over. First appeals filed by the dealer were allowed in part. Applicant as well as Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allow both the appeals of the dealer and has rejected the appeal, filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax. Tribunal held that the assessing authority has not allowed the opportunity of the cross-examination to M/s Ram Singh Mukesh Kumar, Sirsaganj in respect of the documents, which are alleged to have been seized from the premises of M/s Ram Singh Mukesh Kumar, Sirsaganj at the time of survey dated 14.01.1998. It is further held that M/s Ram Singh Mukesh Kumar, Sirsaganj is registered dealer and, therefore, the purchases of supari from the said party can only be treated as purchases made from the registered dealer on which there is no liability of tax on the present dealer.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Tribunal, which is based on material on record. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact. No question of law is involved.
In the result, both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.