Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (1) TMI 848

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble? Held that:- Merely because the Tribunal has mentioned that non-maintaining of other account books could lead to the rejection of account books it cannot be said that rejection of account books was bad. There were other reasons also. The Tribunal has only affirmed the findings of the lower authorities. The next submission with regard to the selling rate also does not have any merit inasmuch as once the account books were rejected even the cash memo submitted by the dealer stood rejected and, therefore, assessment with regard to the selling rate has to be made. Even the learned Standing Counsel could not explain the figure of 100 having been mentioned by the Tribunal after accepting the firing period declared by the dealer. Thus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... completely verifiable? The dispute relates to the assessment year 1987-88. The dealer is a brick-kiln involved in manufacture and sale of bricks. With regard to the assessment year in question the dealer disclosed a firing period of 94 days, the average selling rate at Rs. 295 and on this basis it filed its return. The assessing officer issued a show-cause notice calling upon the dealer to verify and submit its explanation with regard to the issues mentioned in the notice. The dealer submitted his reply to the assessing officer, who being not satisfied with the explanation of the dealer, rejected the account books and determined the total firing period as 104 days, the selling rate at Rs. 450 per thousand bricks and the production capaci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ledger, even though the dealer had maintained the account books and other essential books required under the law. This according to Sri Agrawal could not have been a ground for rejection of account books as under section 12 of the Act the only requirement for a manufacturer is to maintain a true and correct account showing the value of the goods sold and bought by him, and maintain the stock books with regard to the raw materials as well as the products obtained at every stage of production. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this court in the case of Vivek Coal Depot, Chandausi, Varanasi v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow reported in [2007] 6 VST 84; [2007] 35 NTN 208. The next submission is that the selling rate which w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e assessing officer. He further submitted that the dealer had not filed any evidence in support of the selling rate disclosed by him to show that it was the prevalent market rate and, therefore, once the account books were rejected the assessment had to be made by the authority. However, with regard to the period of firing days as having been mentioned as 100 in the order of the Tribunal no explanation could be given by the learned Standing Counsel. Having considered the submissions and having perused the judgment of all the authorities I find that the rejection of the account books was not only on the ground that complete account books had not been maintained but was based on other reasons also such as the dealer not producing any acc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reasoning that merely because the account books had been rejected it was not necessary to reject all the facts declared by the dealer which apparently means that the Tribunal wanted to accept the firing period declared by the dealer in his return. This reasoning of the Tribunal is mentioned at two places. Therefore, while dealing with that issue if the Tribunal had proceeded on this basis then the number of firing days as declared by the dealer ought to have been accepted. There was no question of finding any midway solution. The firing period as declared by the dealer was 94 and, therefore, it appears that the Tribunal by omission or by mistake mentioned the declared firing period as 100 instead of 94. Even the learned Standing Counsel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates