2019 (10) TMI 952 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the Tribunal was legally justified to hold a view that hoisery goods were being carried through bills dated 01.10.2006 and on physical verification woollen garments were found? - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has, in the first place, referred to the procedure that is required to be followed by the first appeal authority and, in that regard, first appeal authority did not call for a remand report. However, the Tribunal has not recorded its finding on the observations alone. In fact, the Tribunal has thereafter itself examined the issue and observed that the goods in question were woollen garments whereas the bills only reflected the same to be hoisery - On such finding, the Tribunal has concluded that the goods were not accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee. As such, the direction issued by this Court is found to have been complied and there is no error in the order of the Tribunal, to that extent. The fact that the books of accounts of the assessee came to be accepted, may not give rise to any benefit to the assessee, in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, that order of assessment dated 29.3.2009 came to be passed after the penalty under Section 30-A (4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 had been deleted by the first appeal authority on 25.4.2007. This fact and reason had been specifically mentioned by the assessing authority in the assessment order dated 29.3.2009 - Since no independent reason had been given by the assessing officer to accept the books of accounts and, in fact, he had accepted the books of accounts since penalty proceedings came to be dropped meanwhile, the rights of the parties in the penalty proceedings would continue to be determined by the further orders passed in the penalty proceedings and, to that extent as well, the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with court order by Commercial Tax Tribunal
2. Proper accounting of goods in account books
3. Nature of goods transported and discrepancy in billing description

Compliance with Court Order:
The revisionist challenged the Tribunal's order, alleging non-compliance with a previous court order. The Court found that the Tribunal did follow the directions issued by the Court. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to examine if the seized goods were properly accounted for in the assessee's books. The first appeal authority confirmed that the goods were accounted for, leading to the conclusion that the Tribunal did comply with the Court's direction.

Proper Accounting of Goods:
During the assessment year, the assessee, a manufacturer of ready-made garments, dispatched goods described as "Suit," "H/N," "H/N Lady," and "Short coty." Although the bills were issued from regular accounts, physical verification revealed the goods were woollen garments, not properly accounted for as the bills only mentioned hoisery items. The Tribunal's conclusion was upheld due to the lack of evidence proving the goods' actual nature as woollen garments.

Nature of Goods Transported:
The Tribunal noted that woollen garments are distinct from hoisery items, and the billing description should reflect this distinction. As the bills did not specify the goods as woollen garments, the Tribunal's finding that the goods were not accounted for in the assessee's books was deemed appropriate. The lack of evidence supporting the goods' categorization led to the dismissal of the revision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was upheld as it was based on the available evidence and did not warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of the Court. The revision lacked merit and was consequently dismissed.