2014 (7) TMI 1307 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - difference of stock not properly not properly discussed - HELD THAT - From a perusal of the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, it is noticed that there is no reference to the stock of 1097 M.T. having been recorded in the book of accounts and that in the survey by the S.I.B. on 28.06.2010 the stock was found to be 1083 M.T., therefore, difference in stock has not been discussed at all by the Tribunal - the impugned order dated 27.03.2014 of the Tribunal is illegal and arbitrary and is accordingly set side. Revision allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Revision against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal
2. Discrepancy in stock found during income tax raid and S.I.B. inspection
3. Appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal based on discrepancies
4. Lack of discussion on key facts by the Tribunal leading to rejection of appeal
5. Legal validity of the Tribunal's order

Analysis:
The case involves a trade tax revision filed against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow. The revisionist, a registered dealer under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, was engaged in the business of iron and steel. An income tax raid revealed excess stock worth Rs. 27 lacs, which was admitted by the revisionist. Subsequently, an S.I.B. inspection found a discrepancy in the stock recorded in the book of accounts and the actual stock on the premises. The first appellate authority granted relief of Rs. 2,44,000 to the revisionist, which was challenged before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal acknowledged the discrepancies in stock found during the income tax raid and the S.I.B. inspection. However, it failed to discuss the crucial fact that the stock recorded in the book of accounts was 1097 M.T. while the actual stock on the premises was 1083 M.T. This oversight led to the rejection of the revisionist's appeal. Upon review, the High Court found the Tribunal's order to be illegal and arbitrary due to the lack of discussion on the stock difference. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remitting the matter back to the Commercial Tax Tribunal for reconsideration within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of thorough consideration and discussion of all relevant facts by the Tribunal in tax matters. Failure to address key discrepancies can result in the overturning of decisions by higher judicial authorities, emphasizing the need for meticulous analysis in tax dispute resolutions.