9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with regard to U. P. was partly allowed and with regard to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, the Central Act ) the appeal of the Department was allowed and the tax liability under both the Acts were accordingly increased. The dealer is carrying on the business of manufacturing and sales of iron and steel and agricultural implements. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1992-93 both under the State and Central Act. With regard to the relevant assessment year the dealer disclosed gross sale of Rs. 25,96,823. The taxable turnover under the said Act was shown as Rs. 12,26,463 whereas under the Central Act no sale was declared. The assessing authority noticed certain discrepancy in the return filed by the dealer and accordingly issued show-cause notice dated March 18, 1994 calling upon the dealer to submit his explanation on the five points mentioned in the notice. The first point related to difference of Rs. 85,567 in the return and the account books. The second point was with regard to decline in turnover in the relevant assessment year from the previous year. The third point on which the dealer was called upon was with regard to survey dated F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith regard to the State liability and enhanced the demand by Rs. 60,000 and also allowed the appeal of the Department under the Central Act and enhanced the demand by Rs. 3,440. Aggrieved by the same present two revisions have been filed by the dealer. I have heard Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the dealer and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel representing the Department. With regard to the revision relating to the demand under the State Act, the following questions of law have been raised: (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in sustaining the rejection of books of account? (ii) Whether the rejection of books of account is based on relevant considerations? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in estimating the taxable turnover at Rs. 30,00,000? In the revision relating to the demand under the Central Act the following questions of law have been raised: (i) Whether, on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in sustaining the rejection of books of account? (ii) Whether the rejection of books of account is based on relevant consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax under the Central Act. According to the dealer this sale was also made against form C and instead of eight per cent (normal tax) the reduced rate of four per cent was admissible. Further submission of Sri Agarwal is that once the sales were entered into the account books which were produced before the assessing authority in which no discrepancy was otherwise found, rejection of the account books on his ground cannot be sustained. He has referred to section 12A of the Act and has submitted that the burden of proof to determine the taxable turnover other than what has been disclosed by the dealer lies upon the Department and the assessing authority is required to discharge its burden by collecting cogent material to record a finding against the dealer with regard to the escapement of turnover. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Laki Bartan Store, Mauranipur, Jhansi reported in [2005] 28 NTN 69. On the other hand Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel, has submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal based on consideration of material evidence on record is a pure finding of fact and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of disturbance in the months of November and December in the relevant assessment year, the business activity had suffered and, therefore, there was a fall in the turnover but the reason for rejection of account books is not only on account of reduction in turnover but also for other reasons for which the explanation tendered by the dealer cannot be accepted. With regard to the five bilties, which were recorded in the survey made by the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) from the business premises of the transporter, no acceptable explanation has been put forth by the dealer. Merely because transaction of four out of five goods receipts were entered in the account books subsequent to the show-cause notice given by the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) it cannot be presumed that the dealer had maintained the account books in order and in accordance with law. The Sales Tax Officer (SIB) had given a show-cause notice with regard to the transaction covered by five goods receipts but the dealer admittedly failed to appear before the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) nor did he submit any explanation. Presumption is that there was some irregularity with regard to the said transaction. Further, the deal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
