Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S AMIR KHANDSARI UDYOG versus COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Amir Khandsari Udyog v. Commissioner Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 861 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 1547 (20 January 2006)

 

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

RESERVED

TRADE TAX REVISION N0.861 OF 1999.

M/S Amir Khandsari Udyog, Muzaffarnagar.                                     Applicant                                                                             Versus

Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow.                                     Opp-party

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 7th July, 1999 relating to the assessment year, 1993-94 first part for the period 1.4.1993 to 10.5.1993.

The applicant owns a crusher and was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Gur and Khandsari. The applicant claimed to have manufactured 4147 quintals of Gur and Ruskut and during the year under consideration, there was an opening stock of gur and ruskut at 6909.60 quintals and in this way total gur and ruskut available for sale was 11056.40 quintals, sold during the year under consideration. Out of which sales through consignment agent outside the State of U.P. was at 10828.80 quintals for Rs.7, 22,536.53 paise and 227.60 quintals of gur was sold inside the State of U.P. against 6 R. It appears that in the return, the applicant had disclosed gross sales at Rs.74, 76, 268.35 paise and as per books of account total turnover disclosed was Rs.79, 80,126.01 paise. Thus, difference between return version and book version was Rs.5, 03,857.66 paise. Sales within the State of U.P. was claimed to have been made against Form 3-C (4) no.287447 and exemption on such sales was claimed. Assessing authority rejected the books of account and estimated the suppressed sales of gur inside the State of U.P. at Rs.6, 43,217.68 paise. Assessing authority accepted the sales made through consignment agent in respect of which Form F was furnished and also allowed the exemption on the sales against Form 3-C (4). Assessing authority rejected the books of account on the ground that there was difference in the return version and book version which was not properly explained and 569 katta of gur was found kept at Manoranjan Cold Storage, the entry of which could not be shown in the books of account, to the Trade Tax Officer (SIB) on the notice being issued. It has also been stated that it was not disclosed that the goods were being kept in Manoranjan Cold Storage and cashbook, ledger and challan have not been maintained. Applicant filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and declared the applicant non-taxable. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal and restored the assessment order. Tribunal confirmed the rejection of books of account on the ground that the applicant could not explain the difference in the return version and book version. It has also been stated that at the time of survey dated 27.7.1993, Trade Tax Officer (SIB) made at the premises of M/S Manoranjan Cold Storage, 569 katta of gur was found belonging to the applicant and inspite of the notice being sgiven by the Trade Tax Officer (SIB), the books of account could not be produced to show the entries of 569 katta of gur. It has also been stated that the applicant had given information for keeping 600 katta of gur at the Manoranjan Cold Storage include 569 katta of gur was found.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the difference in the book version and return version were explained and since book version was higher than the return version, no adverse inference should be drawn. He further submitted that the applicant has given the information to the assessing authority on 3.4.1993 for keeping 600 katta of gur out of which 569 katta of gur were found at the time of survey made at the premises at Manoranjan Cold Storage, thus, no adverse inference should be drawn.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the difference in the return version and book version was substantial. Thus, it should be explained and be verified from the books of account. He further submitted that the entry of 569 katta of gur which was found available at Majoranjan Cold Storage could not be shown in the books of account, thus, same has been rightly treated as undeclared stock of gur.

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

With regard to the difference in the return version and book version, it was explained that some of the sales were shown after including the expenses and some of the sales were shown in the account of the reconstituted Firm. Order the Tribunal shows that the applicant did not bother to get his explanation verified from the books of account either of his Firm or of reconstituted firm. He could not explain as to how much sales were shown after including the expenses and how much were disclosed in the reconstituted firm. In my view, the explanation of the applicant appears to be contradictory. If the higher turnover is shown in the books of account than the return, the applicant has to explain that which turnover of the books of account could not be shown in the return and instead of explaining this aspect, applicant explained that some of the sales were shown after including expenses and some of the sales were shown in the account of reconstituted firm. However, from the perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is not clear that how the return version and book version lead to the inference of suppression of turnover. Similarly, if the applicant has given the information for keeping 600 katta of gur at Manoranjan Cold Storage and out of which 569 katta of gur were found at the time of survey dated 27.67.1993 then it is not clear how it leads to the inference of suppression. Tribunal has not considered that if 600 katta of gur were shown to have been kept at Manoranjan Cold Storage and if 569 katta of gur were found, than what happened to the balance quantity.

For the aforesaid reasons, in my view, matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal.

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 observation made above.

Dated.20.01.2006

VS.


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.