2018 (7) TMI 1266 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Enhancement of rate of tax - purchase and sale of food grains, pulses and oil seeds - case of revisionist is that though the survey was conducted at the business premises of the revisionist on 24.04.2014 by the SIB but so far as the loose parchas recovered from the business place of the revisionist are concerned, they do not belong to the revisionist - Held that - This Court has noticed that the assessing authority has considered the survey report and further that the survey was also conducted at two other premises namely Raj Gharana Enterprises and Maa Durga Enterprises and admittedly both the aforesaid firms are related with the revisionist firm. The loose parchas clearly indicates and tallied with the dates of purchase, vehicle numbers, quantity, value and the name of persons etc. The parcha numbers did not describe the invoice number as well as the book number, therefore, it cannot be tallied with the books found at the time of survey at the business premises of the revisionist. The contention of the revisionist is not correct nor the same is based on any material. In fact, in the impugned order of the Tribunal, it is noticed that the figure being ₹ 4,97,300/- is wrongly typed/mentioned as ₹ 49,73,000/-which learned counsel for the revisionist has accepted - there is no error in the order of the tribunal. Even otherwise also, there are no discrepancies in the orders passed by the Tribunal and in fact the Tribunal has substantially reduced the turn over while confirming rejection of books of accounts. It is not a case where any legal issue is involved which can be decided by this Court under Section 58 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Assessment based on survey findings, rejection of books of account, disputed tax liability, appellate authority's orders, Tribunal's decisions, misreading of loose parchas, legal errors in Tribunal's orders.

Analysis:
The case involved a revisionist engaged in the purchase and sale of food grains, pulses, and oil seeds. A survey conducted by the Special Investigation Branch (SIB) at the revisionist's business place resulted in the recovery of loose parchas. The assessing authority passed an assessment order based on these findings, assessing tax liabilities for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The revisionist disputed these assessments, leading to appeals before the Additional Commissioner and subsequently before the Tribunal.

For the assessment year 2013-14, the first appellate authority partially allowed the revisionist's appeal, reducing the tax liability. However, for the assessment year 2014-15, the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal further reduced the tax liabilities for both years but sustained a portion of the disputed tax amount. The revisionist contended that the loose parchas recovered during the survey did not belong to them and that the assessment was solely based on the survey findings, which they argued was unlawful.

The assessing authority rejected the revisionist's books of account based on the survey report and the recovery of loose parchas. The Tribunal found that the parchas recovered contained detailed information matching the revisionist's business transactions. Despite the revisionist's arguments, the Tribunal upheld the assessment, considering the evidence presented.

Regarding the misreading of loose parchas, the revisionist claimed that the Tribunal erred in presuming certain cash amounts related to retail purchases and sales. However, the Court found no merit in this argument and upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the figures in question were incorrectly mentioned in the order but did not impact the overall assessment.

Ultimately, the Court found no legal errors in the Tribunal's orders and dismissed both revisions, emphasizing that no significant legal issues were present for their consideration under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and factual findings in tax assessments, underscoring the Tribunal's role in reviewing and deciding on such matters.