1987 (8) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessee was that the turnover of two separate businesses should have been assessed separately under two assessment orders and the Sales Tax Officer erred in having clubbed the turnover of the two separate businesses. The contention of the assessee having not been accepted by the Tribunal, the assessee has come up in revision. The short question for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the turnover of the two kilns belonging to the assessee, deserves to be assessed under two separate assessment orders and whether the Sales Tax Officer was right in having made a single assessment in respect of the aggregate turnover of the two kilns of the assessee. Section 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the Act, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. It cannot be said that a new dealer comes into being when an individual starts different businesses in different periods of a single assessment year. The scheme of the Act is that a dealer has to be assessed in respect of his aggregate turnover. So the turnover may be of several businesses, but so long as there is no change in the identity of dealer, the turnover of all the businesses will have to be clubbed in a single assessment made for a given assessment year. The Act does not contemplate a situation that the same dealer will be assessed separately for each business carried on in a single assessment year. The assessment is not made for the turnover of a single business but the assessment is in respect of the aggregate turnover of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f first quality at Rs. 200 in the second season, took the average rate of Rs. 150. The appellate authority reduced the same to Rs. 130. The submission of Sri Kumar is that the assessing officer wrongly referred to the rate of Rs. 200. He urges that the assessee showed the average rate at Rs. 105 only and in support of that he adduced evidence also. This contention requires reconsideration. The question is as to what is the basis of the rate of Rs. 200 which the assessing officer took into consideration for taking the averege rate of Rs. 150 per 1,000. The other question is as to how the sole instance of Rs. 105 for which the evidence was adduced by the assessee, is not relevant for the case of the assessee. In the result, the revision i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X