JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar - These are two revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 arising from the order of the Tribunal dated June 28, 2003 for the assessment year 1999-2000. Trade Tax Revision No. 890 of 2003 relates to the assessee and Trade Tax Revision No. 1208 of 2003 relates to the Department. The assessee was carrying on the business of medicines. A survey was made on June 18, 1999. During the course of the survey, some incriminatory documents were found in which the entries relating to the sales of the medicines were recorded. Before the assessing authority, the assessee contended that such survey had not been made on its business premises and such documents did not relate to it. The plea of the assessee had not been accepted by the assessing authority and as against the suppressed turnover, found in the seized documents and after giving the benefit of exemption on the turnover of the tax-paid medicines, the taxable turnover of Rs. 3,20,00,000 had been estimated. The tax has been levied treating the assessee as manufacturer. Being aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Gorakhpur, which has been allowed in part. The appellate authority has estimated the suppressed sales at Rs. 1,50,00,000. Being aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the assessee as well as the Commissioner, Trade Tax, filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected the appeal of the Commissioner, Trade Tax, and has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal has estimated the suppressed sales at Rs. 50,00,000. The Tribunal has not accepted the plea of the assessee that the survey was not made at its business premises and the seized documents do not relate to it. Heard Sri Kunwar Saksena, learned counsel for the applicant - assessee, and Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned standing counsel. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the assessing authority has levied tax on the suppressed turnover treating the applicant as the manufacturer simplicitor as the first sale after the manufacture, while, the Tribunal has treated the applicant as the deemed manufacturer under section 2(ee) of the Act in respect of the suppressed turnover. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the assessing authority has levied tax on the suppressed turnover treating the applicant as the manufacturer simplicitor as the first sale after the manufacture, while, the Tribunal has treated the applicant as the deemed manufacturer under section 2(ee) of the Act in respect of the suppressed turnover. It is submitted that the suppressed turnover could be liable to tax as a deemed manufacturer in a situation when the purchases have been made from the manufacturer - dealer, whose turnover was below Rs. 1 lac and such dealer was not liable to tax and in case if the turnover of the manufacturer - dealer was above Rs. 1 lac, such dealer was liable to tax in respect of such turnover then the applicant would not be treated as the deemed manufacturer. The reliance is placed on the decision of the apex court in the case of Jhunjhunwala v. State of U.P. reported in [2006] 148 STC 659 (SC); [2007] UPTC 11 (SC). He further submitted that the estimate of turnover is excessive. Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned standing counsel, submitted that at no stage the assessee has furnished any evidence to show that the purchases of the suppressed turnover were made from the manufacturer - dealer, whose turnover was more than Rs. 1 lac. The assessee all along contended that the survey and the seized documents did not relate to it. No details have been furnished relating to the purchases and, therefore, it is not open to the assessee to raise such plea at this stage and no further opportunity may be provided to the assessee to lead the evidence in this regard. I have perused the impugned orders. I do not find any error in the estimate of the turnover. The estimate is based on the suppressed turnover detected from the seized documents at the time of the survey. The contention of the assessee relating to the deemed sale also cannot be accepted. Before all the authorities the assessee has contended that such survey has not been made on its premises and the documents seized at the time of survey did not relate to it. The contention of the assessee relating to the deemed sale also cannot be accepted. Before all the authorities the assessee has contended that such survey has not been made on its premises and the documents seized at the time of survey did not relate to it. At no stage it has been contended that the purchases relating to such suppressed turnover were made from the manufacturer - dealer whose turnover was above the taxable limit and they were liable to tax in respect of such transaction. All the authorities have recorded categorical finding that the entries of the sales incorporated in the seized documents were not verified from the books of account. In the circumstances, the plea of learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted at this stage and no further opportunity is to be provided to lead evidence in this regard. In the circumstances, both the revisions fail and are dismissed.