Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U.P.LUCKNOW versus S/S ALUMINUM BARTAN STORES, GORAKHNATH ROAD, GORAKHPUR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner Trade Tax U.P.Lucknow v. S/S Aluminum Bartan Stores, Gorakhnath Road, Gorakhpur - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 2835 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 18408 (1 November 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

Court no. 43

Trade Tax Revision no. 2835 Of 2004.

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow..... Revisionist.

Versus

S/S Aluminum Bartan Stores, Gorakhpur       ... Opp. Party.

AND

Trade Tax Revision no. 2276 Of 2004.

S/S Aluminum Bartan Stores, Gorakhpur       ... Opp. Party.

Versus

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow..... Revisionist.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These two revisions under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 28th  June,  2004 both relating to the assessment year 1998-1999.  

Revision no. 2835 Of 2004 has been filed by the dealer and the Revision no. 2276 Of 2004 has been filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax.

The dealer was carrying on the business of scrap and Utensils.  During the year under consideration, dealer had disclosed the sale of Utensils and Scrap to the extent of Rs.21,75,804.77 and Rs.7,87,971,50 respectively.  Taxable turnover of Utensils was not shown.  The books of account and the best judgment was considered on the basis of the Purchas seized at the time of survey dated 18.9.1998.  The Assessing authority on the basis of seized Purchas, estimated the turnover at Rs.52 Lacs.  The First Appeal filed by the dealer was allowed in part.  The First Appellate Authority has estimated the taxable turnover at Rs.30 Lacs, scrap at Rs.25 Lacs and Utensils at Rs.5 Lacs.  Aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, dealer as well as the Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal by the impugned order, rejected the appeal of Commissioner of Trade and partly allowed the appeal of the dealer.  The Tribunal has estimated the turnover of scrap at Rs.12 Lacs and the suppressed turnover of Utensils at Rs.2,50,000/- keeping in view the suppression of scrap at Rs.505013/- and Utensils at Rs.1,33,786/-.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the dealer submitted that at the time of survey dated 18.9.1998, only 18 used Purchas were seized which was specifically mentioned in the survey report.  Photostat copy of the survey report is Annexure-2 to the revision petition, therefore, reference of Purcha no. 19 in the assessment order as well as in the order of the Tribunal, is not justified.  He submitted that it is not clear that whether the Purcha no. 19 had been referred or not and thus, according to him, estimate is arbitrary.  

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the estimate of turnover of scrap at Rs.12 Lacs is patently arbitrary.  According to him, dealer had disclosed the sales at Rs.7,87,971.50 and suppressed purchases were found at Rs.505013/-, therefore, estimate of turnover at Rs.12 Lacs is arbitrary.  He submitted that on the basis of suppression found from the Purchas, seized the business premises of the dealer for whole year, should be estimated.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below and have also perused the survey report dated 18.9.1998.

I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the dealer as well as learned Standing Counsel.  The survey report dated 18.9.1998 reveals that only 18 Purchas were found.  Thus, it is not clear that how the Purcha no.19 had been referred in the assessment order and also in the order of the Tribunal. This aspect of the matter requires reconsideration.  The Tribunal is also required to consider the submissions of learned Standing Counsel.  Looking to the disclosed turnover of scrap and the suppression found, estimate of turnover at Rs.12 Lacs appears to be arbitrary and without any basis.  In the circumstances, matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal and determine the turnover afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties.

In the result, both the revisions are allowed.  Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal and determine the turnover afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Dt:01.11.2006.

MZ/-


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.