2018 (3) TMI 543 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - rejection on the ground that the assessee had filed to maintain stock books in respect of the raw material as well as products obtained at every stock of production - liability to tax - Held that - The manufacturer liable to pay tax under the act is required to maintain stock books in respect of raw materials, as well as products obtained at every stage of production, unless exempted under the proviso. The maintenance of stock books would have a direct co-relation with the manufacturing process, as to maintain records of movement of raw material as well as finished products. The Tribunal has not specifically reversed the finding of first appellate authority in that regard. Though the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that proper movement of stock is not maintained, but there is no discussion in the order of tribunal specifying the process, as also the stages of production to record movement of stocks. Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintaining stock books in respect of raw materials and products at every stage of production.
2. Assessment of turnover and tax liability.
3. Reversal of orders by appellate authorities and Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a registered dealer engaged in manufacturing and selling Pan Masala. The assessing authority rejected the books of account of the dealer for the assessment year 1999-2000, citing failure to maintain stock books for raw materials and products at every stage of production. The turnover was enhanced to impose additional tax liability, which was challenged by the dealer in appeal.

2. The appellate authority found that the dealer had indeed maintained the necessary stock books as per Section 12(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. It was observed that the manufacturing process was adequately documented, and there was no evidence of any turnover escaping assessment. However, the order in favor of the dealer was reversed in a subsequent appeal by the revenue.

3. The Tribunal concluded that the dealer's manufacturing unit did not maintain proper stock registers and upheld the enhanced turnover. The dealer then approached the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal's decision was unjustified as it did not specifically address the findings of the first appellate authority. The Court noted that the Tribunal failed to provide detailed reasoning for its decision and did not adequately consider the absence of evidence supporting the breach of Section 12(2) or the alleged justification for enhancing the turnover.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the dealer, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decision lacked sufficient justification and failed to address the key aspects highlighted by the appellate authorities. The Court held that the provisions of Section 12(2) had not been breached, and the enhancement of turnover was not justified.