1963 (1) TMI 42 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the appellate court regarding the appointment of the Additional Judge (Appeals).
2. Justification of the assessment of turnover based on the value of closing stock for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52, and 1952-53.

Jurisdiction of the Appellate Court:
The assessee contested the jurisdiction of the Additional Judge (Appeals) of Kanpur Range at Agra, arguing that the Additional Judge (Appeals) was not validly appointed and therefore had no right to hear the appeals. However, it was clarified that under the Sales Tax Act, an appeal lies to an authority prescribed by the State Government, which includes the Judge (Appeals). The term "Judge (Appeals)" encompasses any person appointed as such by the State Government, without any restriction on the number of individuals authorized to act as Judges (Appeals). Hence, the appointment of the Additional Judge (Appeals) was deemed valid, and any authorized person could hear the appeals. The objection raised by the assessee regarding the jurisdiction of the Additional Judge (Appeals) was dismissed, as it was not raised during the revision proceedings and therefore could not be referred to the Court under section 11(1).

Assessment of Turnover based on Closing Stock:
In the absence of proper account books and data provided by the assessee, the Sales Tax Officer had assessed the turnover based on the value of the closing stock of materials. The Judge (Revisions) acknowledged the connection between turnover and the value of stock, as highlighted by the assessee's counsel. It was recognized that dealers maintain stock based on expected sales, and the value of stock is related to the annual turnover through a certain multiple. The Judge (Appeals) had determined this multiple, which was considered reasonable and not arbitrary. Therefore, the assessment of turnover based on the value of closing stock was deemed justified, and the question was answered in the affirmative.

Conclusion:
The Court directed the distribution of copies of the judgment to the Judge (Revisions) and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., as required by the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Commissioner of Sales Tax was awarded costs for the reference, assessed at Rs. 100. The reference was answered accordingly, settling the issues raised in the judgment.