OM PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four revisions arise out of common order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Aligarh, dated June 7, 1999 remanding Second Appeals No. 61, 62, 63 and 64 of 1997 by the revisionist and Second Appeal Nos. 99, 100, 101 and 102 of 1997 by the department. Questions involved in all the revisions are identical, therefore, the revisions are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) For assessment year 1984-85 original assessment was completed on March 30, 1989 and for the assessment year 1985-86 the original assessment was completed on December 31, 1988. The assessing authority, however, reopened the assessments for both the years under Section 21 on the ground that certain information was received from Sales Tax Officer (S.I.B.) who in his own turn had received informations from the Mandi Samiti which disclosed that certain turnover escaped assessment. After giving the assessee opportunity the assessing authority passed final orders under Section 21 enhancing the admitted tax liability of Rs. 55,153.11 paise to Rs. 5,20,472.50 paise in assessment year 1984-85 (U.P.) and imposed tax liability of Rs. 10,53,000 in assessment year 1984-85 (Central). Similarly for the assessment year 1985-86 also books of account were rejected and the admitted tax liability was enhanced for both the U.P. and Central. The dealer filed first appeal and thereafter second appeals but was not satisfied by the order passed in the second appeals. The revisionist had, therefore, approached this Court in Trade Tax Revision Nos. 417, 418, 419 and 420 of 1996. This Court by order dated April 18, 1996 disposed of the said revisions upholding the order of remand passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal. The court had however, observed that

(3.) After aforesaid order dated April 18, 1996 was passed by this Court the assessing authority summoned the Sales Tax Officer/S.I.B. concerned as well as the Secretary of Mandi Parishad. It appears that the Secretary was required to produce relevant 9 Rs and R 50s. It also appears that time was sought by the Secretary, Mandi Parishad to trace out 9 Rs and R 50s. It, however, appears that the time for assessment after remand was passing out, the assessing authority passed the assessment order under Section 21, dated October 22, 1996 and passed almost the same orders which were passed earlier under Section 21. The first appellate authority allowed the appeals on the ground that the observations of the High Court in the order dated April 18, 1996 have not been complied with and passed remand order. Both the department as well as the assessee felt aggrieved by the remand order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, and the Tribunal by order dated June 7, 1999 dismissed all the appeals and sustained the order of the remand passed by the first appellate authority. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the dealer has filed the aforesaid four revisions.