COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX Vs. R.K. INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Trade Tax Revision, under Sec. 11(1) of the Trtax Act, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29 -9 -2005, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Uttaranchal Haldwani in S.A. No. 58/2003 (97 -98).

(2.) The revision has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law:

(3.) Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the assessee is involved in production of Rice, Rice -bran, Bhosi etc. On 2 -7 -97 the Special Investigating Branch of the Revenue Department inspected truck No. U.P. -26/8024 and found that 230 bags of Rice Bran were being transported by the truck. Out of these, 168 bags of Rice Bran were purchased by M/s Anil Modi Industries Bisalpur, Pilibhit from the respondent/dealer. These goods were not accompanied/covered by any bill proforma, challan and were being transported without any prescribed form or challan. The matter was further inquired into and it was found that on 1 -7 -97 the total paddy stock with the respondent/dealer was to the tune of 161 quintals. This statement was given by the respondent at the time of inspection of another truck No. UTF/9296 on 1.7.97. It was impossible to get 168 bags of Rice Bran (84 quintals) out of total paddy of 161 quintals, particularly when the dealer has shown a recovery of 7% with respect to Rice Bran from the Paddy. It was found that the dealer had suppressed the turnover and was manufacturing rice, rice bran etc without showing the paddy in its accounts. On 2.7.97 the dealer sold 168 bags of Rice Bran (84 quintals) to aforesaid M/S Anil Modi Industries, Bisalpur Pilibhit vide Challan No. 1477/ dated 2.7.97 which was sent with aforesaid Truck No. U.P. 26/8024. The dealer had mentioned in his notice that he had no concern with the Rice Bran whereas the driver of the aforesaid truck had stated that the dealer had loaded these 160 bags of Rice Police in the Truck. The Assessing Officer directed the assessee to deposit balance tax of Rs. 1,44,128/ -. Feeling aggrieved, the dealer preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the dealer filed second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Uttaranchal Haldwani Bench, who vide impugned judgment and order dated 29 -9 -2005 allowed the appeal and reduced the tax to the tune of Rs. 78,255/ -.