FOOTER MAL MEGH RAJ Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a statement of the case under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act which has been submitted by the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Agra.

(2.) THE assessee deals in plain and ornamented glass bangles at Firozabad. In respect of the assessment year 1960-61, an assessment was made against the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act on a turnover of Rs. 2,50,000. It was an assessment under rule 41(5) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules read with section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act and was a best judgment assessment because the assessee's account books were rejected as unreliable. Later on, as a result of a survey made of the business premises of the firm of M/s. Kunji Lal Har Dayal, it was found that the assessee had purchased from that firm hill (liquid gold used in ornamentation of glass bangles) worth Rs. 5,722 which had not been disclosed by the assessee in the course of original assessment proceedings. On the basis of this information, proceedings were taken against the assessee under section 21 to reopen the assessment for the year 1960-61. The assessee admitted purchases worth Rs. 967.50 only and denied the rest. This plea of the assessee was not accepted by the Sales Tax Officer who estimated the escaped turnover of ornamented glass bangles at Rs. 28,000 and added it to the turnover of inter-State sales as originally assessed. On appeal the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) upheld the action under section 21 but reduced the estimate of escaped turnover to Rs. 13,000. Both the assessee and the Commissioner applied in revision. The assessee challenged the action under section 21 as also the quantum of turnover. The Commissioner, on the other hand, contended that the appellate authority had reduced the quantum of turnover without any justification. The Judge (Revisions) rejected the assessee's revision but allowed that of the Commissioner in part, inasmuch as he enhanced the quantum of escaped turnover to Rs. 17,000. On an application by the assessee under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the Judge (Revisions) has submitted the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :

(3.) IN its application under section 11(1), the assessee sought reference on as many as six questions. Question No. (6) relates to this aspect of the matter and reads as below :