High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shiv Shakti Rice Mills v. Commissiner Of Trade Tax, - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 170 of 2003  RD-AH 16563 (10 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 170 of 2003.
Shiv Shakti Rice Mills, Chandauli. Applicant
The 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 9th December, 2002 relating to the assessment year, 1998-1999.
Applicant is manufacturer of rice. Paddy is raw material. At the time of survey dated 28.12.1998, 68 loose parchas were found in which the entries of the purchases of paddy were found and some entries relating to the sales of rice bran and Khanda rice were also found. The difference in the stock was also found. On the basis of the discrepancies, the books of account have been rejected and the turnover had been estimated by way of best judgment assessment. First appeal has been dismissed. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order partly allowed the appeal. Tribunal has estimated the suppression of sale of rice at Rs.10 lacs and accordingly estimated the suppressed purchases of paddy. Tribunal found that the entry of 183.89 quintals of paddy which was recorded in the loose parchas were not found entered in the books of account. Tribunal further held that some of the entries relating to rice bran and khanda rice were also not found entered in the books of account. Tribunal further held that at the time of survey, the difference in the stock to the extent of 59.25 quintals of paddy was also found which were not incorporated in the books of account.
Heard Sri Kunwar Saksena, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no suppression of the sale of Rice was found and the suppression of the purchases of paddy was only found from the seized document and, therefore, the estimate of turnover of rice is not justified.
I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant.
Admittedly, suppression of purchases of paddy were found which is not in dispute. The applicant is the manufacturer of rice which has been manufactured out of paddy. Since the suppression of the purchases of paddy was found, the estimate of turnover of rice manufactured out of suppressed purchases of paddy can not be said to be unjustified.
In view of the above, revision has no force and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.