High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Venus Industries v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 463 of 2000  RD-AH 19977 (24 November 2006)
Court no. 22
Trade Tax Revision no. 463 Of 2000.
Trade Tax Revision no. 464 Of 2000.
S/S Venus Industries, Meerut. ... Revisionist.
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow..... Opp. Party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
These two revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 02th February, 2000 relating to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 both under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.
Applicant was involved in the business of manufacturing of Bus Body. It was claimed that the supply was made mainly to the Government Department and payments were received by the Cheque and drafts. Admittedly, the manufacturing account as required under Section 12 (2) was not maintained and the details of opening and closing stocks were not furnished. In the return version and book version, there was a difference of Rs.5,200/- which were not explained. Therefore, the Assessing Authority rejected the books of account and made a nominal enhancement in the turnover for both the assessment years. The First Appellate Authority accepted the books of account and the disclosed turnover on the ground that the dealer had maintained the books of account in the same form as it was maintained for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 and during these years, progressive turnover was disclosed. The Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed the appeal and restored the order of the Assessing Authority.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the books of account had been wrongly rejected and the turnover was illegally enhanced.
I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant. Admittedly, the applicant had not maintained the books of account as required under Section 12 (2) of the Act and details of opening and closing stocks were not furnished and in the return version and book version, there was a difference for Rs.5,200/- which could not be explained. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow versus M/S Girja Shankar Awanish Kumar reported in 1997 UPTC page 213, held that the maintenance of manufacturing account under Section 12 (2) of the Act, is mandatory and in case, if the manufacturing account is not maintained in accordance to Section 12 (2) of the Act, books of account are liable to be rejected and the turnover has to be determined on the basis of best judgment assessment. It is true that the supply was mainly made to the Government Department and the payments were received by Cheque and Drafts and substantial turnover was disclosed, hence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Authority made a nominal enhancement of the turnover for both the years. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.