LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-373

GUJRAT TIMBER STORES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

Decided On October 19, 2010
Gujrat Timber Stores Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the Assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal dated 8.8.2003 for the assessment year 1994 -95 by which the Tribunal has made a best judgment assessment on the basis of one transaction made by the Assessee on 173 pieces of timber without entering them into the books.

(2.) THE Assessee is a registered dealer who received an order to supply 300 pieces of timber on 22.11.1994 to another registered dealer, namely, Triveni Sheet Glass Works Limited, Kanpur Road, Allahabad. The Assessee arranged to send 173 pieces of timber which were apprehended on 24.11.1994 and at the time of apprehension the goods were not accompanied by appropriate papers rather the challan has been drawn on a separate letter head. The explanation of the Assessee is that since proper order was not being made on that date but subsequently when full supply of 300 pieces of timber was made a bill No. 213, dated 26.11.1994 was drawn by the applicant in favour of the purchaser.

(3.) AT the time of making an assessment also for the year in question the authorities came to the conclusion that the goods were being supplied without proper papers. Learned Counsel has argued that the value of the goods which were apprehended on 24.11.1994 was approximately Rs. 18,600/ - and thereafter on that basis the estimate could not have been exaggerated to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/ - as has been done by the authorities. He has also stated that the quantum so fixed is exorbitant and not justified. His argument is that a proper explanation has been given by the Assessee about the goods apprehended on 24.11.1994 and his books of account could not have been rejected because he has made sales to a registered dealer and also produced the evidence in that behalf before the authorities concerned. His argument is that the authority concerned has ignored the evidence and had made an excessive estimate in the turnover of the Assessee. He has further argued that he has not sold any timber product in the year in question.