NAMIT TEA CENTER Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M. Manglik, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) In the assessment year 1993-94 the assessee disclosed closing balance of Rs. 2,40,079. He claimed exemption from payment of tax in respect of turnover of Rs. 1,16,481. The assessing authority did not accept the claim of the assessee and assessed the dealer on taxable turnover of Rs. 20,00,000 and imposed tax liability of Rs. 2,00,000. First appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed and taxable turnover was reduced to Rs. 3,80,000 and tax liability to be reduced was Rs. 38,000. Both the department as well as the assessee felt aggrieved and filed second appeals. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed whereas the appeal of the department was partly allowed and on taxable turnover of Rs. 7,00,000, tax liability of Rs. 70,000 was fixed.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the assessee has filed the present revision. It is submitted by Sri Manglik that the assessee had disclosed opening balance of stock of Rs. 2,40,079 and closing balance also of worth Rs. 2,40,079. The closing balance shown by the revisionist in the assessment year under consideration was shown as opening balance in assessment year 1994-95 which has been accepted by the assessing authority in assessment for the assessment year 1994-95. The Tribunal, however, committed error in treating the closing balance of the year 1993-94, worth Rs. 2,40,079 to have been sold by the assessee in the year under consideration. His next submission is that the Tribunal has observed in its order that 5 forms-XXXI and 10 forms-C were obtained by the dealer in the assessment year under consideration, though the assessee had declared that he did not utilise those forms, yet the Tribunal for no reasons did not accept the claim. Sri Manglik submitted that the forms were returned to the department. His submission is that once the forms were returned to the department the import of goods worth Rs. 4,00,000 on the basis of the utilisation of the forms was wrongly assumed by the Tribunal. Sri Pandey has, however, submitted that it was in the knowledge of the assessee that opening balance of stock worth Rs. 2,40,079 has been accepted by the assessing authority in the assessment year 1994-95. It was duty of the dealer to have pointed out this fact before the Tribunal and in any case application under Section 22 could have been moved by the dealer for correction of the order passed by the Tribunal. It is next submitted that even though a report is obtained from the assessing authority which is dated January 21, 2000 showing vide a receipt No. 624253, dated April 29, 1993, five forms XXXI and vide receipt No. 110, dated April 3, 1998 three forms XXXI were returned by the assessee to the department but the report does not disclose that the forms returned by the assessee were those which were obtained by him in assessment year 1993-94 and the dealer has failed to point out number of forms which were obtained by him during the assessment year 1993-94. It cannot be concluded as a fact that the forms returned by the assessee were those forms which were obtained in the assessment year 1993-94. It is also submitted that besides this there is no verification of returning of 10 forms-C which were allegedly returned by the assessee in the year under consideration.