2012 (5) TMI 565 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - addition on estimated basis - principles of natural justice denied - Held that - A survey was conducted at the business premises of the assessee, though the muneem (accountant) was available at the site no complete books of account were available. It also found that firing in the brick kiln was continued and about five lakh raw bricks were available, but there was no stock of finished goods. In these circumstances, the assessing officer has made the addition on estimate basis by taking into consideration the consumption of coal, firing period, sale of the bricks, etc. The revisionist has not participated in the assessment proceedings before the assessing officer. So, the assessing officer made the addition on estimate basis but the fact remains that in the appeal proceedings, the revisionist has voluntarily participated. When it is so, the principles of natural justice has not been violated. In the instant case, the assessing officer made the addition on estimate basis and the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the addition on estimate basis, which was upheld by the Tribunal. No question of law is emerging from the impugned order. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Revisions under section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against judgment and order dated February 13, 2004 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in Second Appeals Nos. 108 and 107 of 1998 for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96.

Analysis:
The case involved revisions filed against the Trade Tax Tribunal's judgment for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The revisionist, a partnership firm operating a brick kiln, had a survey conducted at its premises in 1995, during which incomplete books of account were found, and firing was ongoing without a stock of finished bricks. The assessing officer rejected the books of account, leading to an ex parte assessment. The first appellate authority and the Tribunal made additions based on estimations of sales, consumption of coal, firing period, etc. The revisionist argued for the benefit of the compounding scheme, temporary closure of firing period, and challenged the enhancement of selling rates, citing legal precedents. The standing counsel supported the impugned order, emphasizing the relief already granted.

The assessing officer's addition on an estimate basis was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal. The Court noted the revisionist's voluntary participation in the appeal proceedings, indicating no violation of natural justice principles. The judgment referenced legal precedents establishing estimation as a question of fact, emphasizing no emerging legal issues. Consequently, the Court sustained the impugned order, dismissing both revisions for lacking merit.