Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SIYA RAM BROTHERS, KANPUR. versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Siya Ram Brothers, Kanpur. v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 328 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 20007 (24 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.22

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.328 of 1999

Siya Ram Brothers, Kanpur.             Applicant

Versus

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 2nd June, 1999 relating to the assessment year, 1981-82.

Applicant was carrying on the business of motor parts, machinery parts, tractor parts etc. Head office is situated at Delhi. Applicant claimed to have maintained books of account in the regular course of business and disclosed the taxable turnover at Rs.46,23,565.40 paise. Assessing authority rejected the books of account and estimated the taxable turnover at Rs.58,36,046/-. In first appeal, books of account and turnover have been accepted. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal in part.  Tribunal has enhanced the turnover by Rs.2 lacs. Tribunal has confirmed the rejection of the books of account on the ground that while importing the goods on 14.12.1981 along with the goods, bill issued by M/S Goetze India Ltd was in favour of the applicant while Form 31 was of M/S Veer Brothers, Kanpur. In respect of another transaction, it was stated that in Form 31, only the value of the goods was mentioned and bill number was not mentioned. Tribunal further observed that Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has not given reason for acceptance of explanation about the discrepancy in the list of the imported goods and the list of Form 31.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that with regard to the import of the goods on 14.12.1981, it was explained that the applicant was the sole distributor of M/S Goetze India Ltd. M/S Veer Brothers, Kanpur send the Form 31 for importing the goods and the goods were dispatched by M/S Goetze India Ltd. The bill was raised in favour of the applicant accompanied by Form 31 of M/S Veer Brothers, Kanpur. The said goods were duly entered in the books of account of the applicant. He submitted that since the goods were accompanied by bill and Form 31 may be of M/S Veer Brothers, Kanpur, but the department came to know about the transaction because of the voluntarily declaration made at the check post. He submitted that no case has been made out that the applicant attempted to evade the aforesaid transaction. With regard to the second transaction, it was submitted that the goods were accompanied by bill, builty and declaration form and merely because the bill number was not mentioned in the declaration form, it cannot be inferred that there was an attempt to evade the tax. With regard to the discrepancy in the amount of the list submitted for the imported goods and Form 31, it is submitted that the detailed explanation has been given, which has been considered in detail by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) observed that another list submitted by the applicant has not been considered by the assessing authority. He submitted that the reason given by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for accepting the plea of the applicant has not been considered by the Tribunal and adverse inference has been drawn in this regard. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

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

So far as adverse inference drawn by the Tribunal in respect of the import of the goods on 14.12.1981 is concerned, the goods were accompanied by bill. The declaration Form may be of M/S Veer Brothers, Kanpur, it cannot be said that there was any attempt on the part of the applicant to evade the transaction. It is not the case of the Revenue that voluntarily declaration was not made at the check post and the aforesaid transaction has been avoided.  Thus, Tribunal is not justified in drawing adverse inference.

So far as second transaction is concerned, Tribunal is not justified in drawing adverse inference. Admittedly the goods were accompanied by bill, builty and Form 31. In Form 31 the value of the goods were mentioned, thus, merely because bill number was not mentioned, it could not be inferred that there was motive of concealment.

So far as discrepancy found by the assessing authority in the list of the imported goods and Form 31 is concerned, perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) reveals that explanation has been considered in detail and the finding has been recorded, but such finding has not been considered by the Tribunal while drawing adverse inference. In my view, Tribunal should have considered the reasoning given by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for accepting the explanation before drawing adverse inference. Since the Tribunal has not considered the reasoning given by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), in my view the matter requires consideration by the Tribunal.

In the result, revision is allowed in part. The 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.

Dated. 24.11.2006.

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.