2007 (8) TMI 708 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conflict of opinion among coordinate Benches.
2. Rejection of account-books and estimation of turnover.
3. Allowance of breakage in brick manufacturing.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Summary:

1. Conflict of Opinion:
A learned Single Judge identified a conflict of opinion among coordinate Benches in the cases of Bhoopal Singh and Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Autar Singh Delip Singh Saluja v. Commissioner of Sales Tax versus Smt. Birmesh Agrawal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. and Satish Chandra Manoj Kumar v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., and referred the case to a larger Bench for resolution.

2. Rejection of Account-Books and Estimation of Turnover:
The applicant, a registered dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, disclosed a taxable turnover of Rs. 37,542.99 for the Assessment Year 1977-78. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the account-books and estimated the turnover at Rs. 79,255/-. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) partially allowed the appeal, estimating the turnover at Rs. 59,050/-. The Tribunal confirmed this order.

3. Allowance of Breakage in Brick Manufacturing:
Sri Krishna Agrawal, amicus curiae, argued that a 5% breakage in brick manufacturing should be allowed while calculating turnover, citing several precedents. However, Sri S.P. Kesarwani, Standing Counsel, contended that the applicant did not raise the breakage claim before the authorities, and thus, the High Court cannot allow it u/s 11 of the Act.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948:
The Court examined the statutory provisions and concluded that it is empowered only to decide questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The Court cited several precedents, including Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Kumaon Tractors and Motors and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Mohan Brickfield, emphasizing that questions of law must arise from the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion:
The Court found that the issue of breakage was not raised before any authorities, including the Tribunal, and thus does not arise from the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the applicant is not entitled to the allowance of breakage. Other questions regarding the checking of books and best judgment assessment are factual and cannot be interfered with by the Court u/s 11 of the Act. The revision was dismissed.