JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, in the instant writ application, has challenged the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Revision Petition bearing Revision Case No. HZ 105 of 2012, wherein revision application has been dismissed and the Appellate Order dated 07.09.2012 including the Assessment Order dated 02.02.2011, wherein gross turnover of the Petitioner was enhanced by a sum of Rs. 1,65,34,577.72 and consequentially tax levied @ 4%, has been upheld. 3. Petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Sponge Iron and during processing and manufacturing of Sponge Iron, iron ore fines and coke as its by-products are produced, which are also sold by Petitioner to its customers. Petitioner, for the purpose of carrying out manufacturing activity, purchases iron ore and consumables, such as, coal, lubricant, etc. and it is the case of the petitioner that some of its iron ore purchased as raw materials is also sold by it directly to its customers. 4. For the Assessment Year 2008-09, regular assessment proceeding of the petitioner was undertaken by its Assessing Officer (Respondent No. 4) under the provisions of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and although books of account of the petitioner was accepted, but, turnover of the petitioner was enhanced by a sum of Rs. 1,65,34,577.72 vide Assessment Order dated 02.02.2011 (Annexure-1) and, consequentially tax @ 4% was determined at Rs. 56,69,115/-. In the Assessment Order, Assessing Officer, on the basis of the books of account of the petitioner itself, recorded, inter-alia, that petitioner in its consumption account, has shown an amount of Rs. 10,46,08,885.86 as direct sale of iron ore, but in the statement of sales, has shown the sale of iron ore at Rs. 9,63,41,597/- and, on the said basis, Assessing Officer determined that petitioner concealed Rs. 82,67,288.86 towards sale of iron ore and proceeded to levy tax @ 4% thereupon. Similarly, the Assessing Officer, on the basis of the books of account of the petitioner itself, recorded that petitioner has shown total gross profit of Rs. 2,20,06,603.36 in its books of account and by comparing the amount of gross profit derived by the petitioner on sale of sponge iron, iron ore fines and coal ash, held that petitioner has shown less gross profit of Rs. 2,20,06,603.36 in its books of account and by comparing the amount of gross profit derived by the petitioner on sale of sponge iron, iron ore fines and coal ash, held that petitioner has shown less gross profit of Rs. 82,67,288.66 and the said amount was consequently treated as concealed sale figure of sponge iron and, accordingly, tax @ 4% was levied thereupon. 5. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, preferred statutory appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Hazaribagh Division, Hazaribagh, which was dismissed vide order contained in Memo No. 403 dated 07.09.2012 (Annexure-7). Thereafter, petitioner preferred statutory revision application before Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand being Revision Petition No. HZ 105 of 2012, which was also dismissed vide order dated 7th March, 2017. 6. Before the Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority, petitioner contended that Assessing Officer, by merely taking into consideration one or the other figures from books of account of the petitioner, have alleged concealment of sales without any evidence in that regard and proceeded to illegally enhance the turnover of the petitioner. It was the case of the Petitioner before Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority that in the consumption account of iron ore, an amount of Rs. 10,46,08,885.86 was reflected as the same was the cost of iron ore which was sold at loss at Rs. 9,63,41,597/-. The differential amount of Rs. 82,67,288.86 was the loss suffered by the petitioner on sale of iron ore, and, since in the consumption account, actual value of iron ore was to be reflected, the figure of Rs. 10,46,08,885.86 was reflected, but since the said goods were sold at a sum of Rs. 9,63,41,597/- for purposes of levy of sales tax, in the Sale Statement, the said figure was reflected being the actual sale price realized on sale of iron ore. It was also stated that on one hand, the loss suffered on sale of iron ore was treated as concealed sale, and, on the other hand, the exact amount of Rs. 82,67,288.66 was wrongly computed as concealed sale of sponge iron by the Assessing Officer merely because the gross profit reflected in the books of account was less by an amount of Rs. 82,67,288.66. However, neither the Appellate Authority nor the Revisional Authority considered the said contention of the Petitioner. 7. Mr. 82,67,288.66 was wrongly computed as concealed sale of sponge iron by the Assessing Officer merely because the gross profit reflected in the books of account was less by an amount of Rs. 82,67,288.66. However, neither the Appellate Authority nor the Revisional Authority considered the said contention of the Petitioner. 7. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Assessing Officer enhancing the turnover of the petitioner was merely based on surmises and conjectures. It was contended that books of account of the petitioner was duly accepted by the Assessing Officer, but, despite thereof, concealment of sale was determined by reckoning one or the other figures from the books of account. It was further contended that there was no iota of evidence to demonstrate that petitioner has concealed its sales turnover. 8. Our attention was drawn to the audited books of account of the petitioner and it was submitted that in the same books of account, two separate figures were shown i.e. the figure of cost of goods sold, and, the sale price of goods sold. Referring to page 45 and page 61 of the writ petition it was contended that in the consumption account, cost of iron ore sold was reflected at Rs. 10,46,08,885.86 and in the same books of account, in the Statement of Sales, the sale of iron ore was reflected as Rs. 9,63,41,597/- and it was submitted that difference amount of Rs. 82,67,288.86 was towards loss suffered on sale of iron ore. Further, by referring to a tabulated chart showing calculation of gross profit, it was submitted that since petitioner has suffered loss on sale of iron ore, whereas, it earned profit on account of sale of sponge iron, coal and iron ore fines, the gross profit amount was reduced by a sum of Rs. 82,67,288.86 being the loss suffered by the petitioner on sale of iron ore, but the said figure was arbitrarily considered as concealment of sale by the Assessing Officer. Reliance was placed upon following decisions to contend, inter-alia, that burden of proving concealed sale is upon the Assessing Officer and the same cannot be determined merely on surmises and conjectures on the basis of books of account of the Petitioner itself without rejecting the books of account of the petitioner: (i) M/s. Shiv Prasad Sahu vs. State of Orissa, (2008) SCC Online Ori. 266 (ii) State of Rajasthan and Another vs. Rajasthan Chemists Association, (2006) 6 SCC 773 (iii) M/s Girdhari Lal Nannelal vs. The Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P. (1976) 3 SCC 701 9. Per contra, counsel for the State stated that petitioner, in its books of account, has not stated that it has suffered any loss, and, it is for the said reason that the Assessing Officer treated two different figures shown towards sale of iron ore as self contradictory and has treated the differential amount as concealed sales and levied tax thereupon. It was further contended that the Assessing Officer, on the basis of books of account of the petitioner, determined that petitioner has earned gross profit on sale of sponge iron of Rs. 2,15,33,524/- and has further earned profit on sale of coal and iron ore fines of Rs. 78,97,925/- and Rs. 8,62,443/- respectively. The total amount of gross profit comes to Rs. 3.02 crores, whereas petitioner has only shown gross profit of Rs. 2,20,06,604.04 and thus, petitioner has shown less gross profit of Rs. 82.00 lakh, which was rightly treated to be concealed sale of sponge iron and consequentially, levied to tax. 10. We have heard the parties and have examined the Assessment Order, Appellate Order and the order passed by Commercial Taxes Tribunal. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has accepted the books of account of the petitioner and, in the Assessment Order, no adverse evidence has been recorded demonstrating concealment of sale. However, the Assessing Officer, by comparing the Statement of Sales as reflected in the books of account (Annexure-5 at page 61) with the Consumption account (at Page 45) treated the difference of the amount of Rs. 10,46,08,885.86 (-) Rs. 9,63,41,597 = Rs. 82,67,288.86 as the concealed sale turnover of iron ore. From the Tax Audited Report submitted to Income Tax Department (Annexure-4), it would be evident that cost of goods sold was clearly reflected as Rs. 10,46,08,886/- whereas, from the Sales Statement, it was evident that said goods were sold at Rs. 9,63,41,597/-. Thus, the differential amount was not the concealed sales amount of the petitioner, but was the loss suffered by the petitioner on sale of iron ore, which is evident from the books of account of the petitioner itself. 11. 10,46,08,886/- whereas, from the Sales Statement, it was evident that said goods were sold at Rs. 9,63,41,597/-. Thus, the differential amount was not the concealed sales amount of the petitioner, but was the loss suffered by the petitioner on sale of iron ore, which is evident from the books of account of the petitioner itself. 11. The Assessing Officer, on one hand, treated the loss suffered by petitioner as concealed sale amount of iron ore, and, on the other hand, by comparing the gross profit shown in books of account of the petitioner, and, by stating, inter-alia, that gross profit has been shown less by the exact amount of Rs. 82,67,288/- proceeded to levy tax again on the said amount by treating it as concealed sale. It appears that the Assessing Officer has completely misconceived itself while passing Assessment Order, as, on one hand, the loss suffered on sale of sponge iron was treated as concealed sale amount, and, on the other hand, exact sale figure was treated to be the concealed sale amount of sponge iron by stating, inter-alia, that petitioner has shown less gross profit in the books of account. We further agree with the submissions of the petitioner and, in the Assessment Order, no adverse finding and/or evidence was recorded about concealment of sales and only on the basis of books of account of the petitioner, concealed sale amount was determined, which is not permissible in law. The Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority failed to appreciate the said contention, despite arguments advanced by the petitioner before the said Authorities. 12. Under the aforesaid cumulative facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the order passed by Revisional Authority dated 07.03.2017 in Revision Case No. HZ 105 of 2012, Appellate order dated 07.09.2012 passed in Appeal Case No. HZ/RG/JVAT-13/2011-12 and Assessment Order including consequential Demand Notice dated 02.02.2011are, hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass de novo Assessment Order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and further to enable the petitioner to explain the figures mentioned in its books of account. 13. Ordered accordingly.