2000 (7) TMI 999 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision filed against Sales Tax Tribunal's order for Assessment Year 1978-79.
2. Discrepancy in disclosed turnover.
3. Disagreement on the increase in firing period.
4. Adverse findings based on surveys conducted.
5. Delayed intimation of closing of firing period.
6. Tribunal's findings on firing period and maintenance of accounts.

Issue 1: Revision against Sales Tax Tribunal's order
The applicant filed a revision against the Sales Tax Tribunal's order for the Assessment Year 1978-79. The Tribunal had dismissed both the appeals filed by the applicant and the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 10 of the Act. The revision was brought before the High Court challenging this decision.

Issue 2: Discrepancy in disclosed turnover
The applicant, a registered dealer under the U. P. Sales Tax Act engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling bricks, disclosed a taxable turnover for the Assessment Year 1978-79. However, the Assessing Authority disbelieved this disclosure and fixed the turnover at a higher amount. Subsequent appeals led to a reduction in the turnover amount by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) but still resulted in a discrepancy.

Issue 3: Disagreement on the increase in firing period
The Counsel for the applicant argued against the increase in the firing period from 99 days to 133 days, as determined by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and confirmed by the Tribunal. The basis for this increase was related to surveys conducted and the stock of coal noted during these surveys, which the applicant contested as being without proper basis.

Issue 4: Adverse findings based on surveys conducted
The surveys conducted on specific dates led to adverse findings against the applicant regarding the firing period and stock of coal available. The Tribunal considered these surveys and the stock of coal noted to infer that the firing continued beyond the disclosed period. The lack of proper maintenance of accounts was also highlighted as a factor in these adverse findings.

Issue 5: Delayed intimation of closing of firing period
The Counsel for the applicant argued that the intimation regarding the closing of the firing period was given belatedly, and therefore, no adverse inference should be drawn against the applicant. However, the Tribunal considered the delayed intimation and the stock of coal found in surveys to presume that the firing continued beyond the disclosed period.

Issue 6: Tribunal's findings on firing period and maintenance of accounts
The Tribunal extensively discussed the fixation of the firing period, the delayed intimation of closing, and the maintenance of accounts by the applicant. It concluded that the findings were based on facts and did not warrant interference under Section 11 of the Act. As a result, the revision was deemed lacking in merit and dismissed by the High Court.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented and the Tribunal's findings in each aspect of the case.