Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1153 (ALL)

ATMA STEEL PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

2000-09-04

R.K.AGRAWAL

body2000
R. K. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant has filed the present revision against the order dated December 13, 1990 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench-3, Ghaziabad, in cross appeals Nos. 595 of 1986 and 33 of 1987 relating to the assessment year 1981-82 (U. P. ). ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present revision are that the applicant is a registered dealer under the provisions of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (now U. P. Trade Tax Act) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel goods. For the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee had disclosed the taxable turnover at Rs. 46,05,184. 05 which was disbelieved by the assessing authority who had determined it at Rs. 1,33,47,460. In the first appeal filed by the applicant, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated May 30, 1986, had partly allowed the appeal and determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 55,23,559. 40. Feeling aggrieved thereby both the applicant and the Commissioner of Sales Tax had preferred second appeals under Section 10 of the Act, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order has dismissed the said appeals. ( 3 ) I have heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S. D. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the present case the assessment proceeding had been initiated in the month of December, 1983 and continued thereafter. However due to unfortunate incident, in November, 1984, the books of accounts were destroyed in the fire on account of anti-social elements and, therefore, the applicant could not produce the books of accounts before the authorities. He further submitted that no discrepancy has been found by the authority in the maintenance of books of accounts. ( 5 ) FROM the perusal of the order of the Tribunal, I find that there was difference in the turnover as disclosed by the applicant as per its books of accounts and as per returns as well as in the net taxable turnover. Certain claims of goods returns, etc. , was also put forward but in the absence of books of accounts, neither disclosed turnover nor claim of exemption could be verified. Certain claims of goods returns, etc. , was also put forward but in the absence of books of accounts, neither disclosed turnover nor claim of exemption could be verified. Be that it may be, the fact remains that the books of accounts was not produced by the applicant before the authorities to get the disclosed turnover and the claim of exemption verified. Thus, the best judgment assessment was necessitated. Since no suppression and concealment has been found, the turnover ought to have been determined by the previous history which the Tribunal did not do. In view of the above, the impugned order dated December 13, 1990, passed by the tribunal is set aside and the Tribunal is hereby directed to decide the appeals afresh in accordance with law. In the result the revision is allowed. .