2020 (3) TMI 826 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Initiation of proceedings under Section 21(2) of Trade Tax Act - assessing authority came to the conclusion that entire transaction of sale of food grains to Assam was at the instance of the revisionist, thereafter, added the said turnover to the account of the revisionist - HELD THAT - In the instant revisions, the revisionists has reiterated the same grounds which have been raised by him before the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. The assessing authority considering the fact that bank draft of ₹ 6 lacs was prepared at the behest of the revisionist adding the turnover of M/s Shanker Traders to the turnover of the revisionist. The only submission challenging the said finding is that the revisionist does not have an account with the Union Bank of India. In this regard, the argument of the revisionist is not convincing and liable to be rejected, as there is no requirement that a person has to be an account holder only then he can have a bank draft prepared. It is open for anyone to deposit the requisite fee and have demand draft/bankers' cheque prepared. There is no material or evidence to set aside the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Sufficient reasons have been stated and considered by the Tribunal which are available on record. The bank draft was made at the behest of the revisionist and his name finds mention in the papers including the builty. The revisionist cannot resile from the facts which have been recorded by the Tribunal and, therefore, there is no material on which the findings of Tribunal can be interfered. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging the order of Commercial Tax Tribunal regarding the addition of turnover from another trader to the revisionist's account.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad involved two revisions challenging a common judgment and order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal. The revisions pertained to the addition of turnover of another trader, M/s Shanker Traders, to the revisionist's account. The revisionist, a registered dealer under U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, was assessed for the year 1999-2000. The Tribunal considered various aspects, including the preparation of a bank draft of ?6 lakhs at the instance of the revisionist, which led to adding the turnover of M/s Shanker Traders to the revisionist's account.

The Tribunal found that the revisionist was involved in the transaction with M/s Shanker Traders, as evidenced by the bank draft prepared at the revisionist's behest and the mention of the revisionist's name in relevant documents. Despite the revisionist's argument that they did not have an account with the bank, the Tribunal concluded that the revisionist was responsible for dispatching goods, leading to tax evasion. The Tribunal reduced the rate of purchase of food grains and sale proceeds, providing some relief to the revisionist.

The revisionists challenged the Tribunal's findings, reiterating arguments made before the lower authorities. However, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the revisionist's involvement in preparing the bank draft and dispatching goods was established. The Court rejected the argument that having an account with the bank was necessary to prepare a bank draft, stating that anyone could do so by depositing the required fee. Ultimately, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's well-reasoned findings, dismissing the revisions as lacking merit and upholding the Tribunal's order.