COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX Vs. CHAURIHA TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This trade tax revision has been preferred under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short called "the Act") against the order dated May 27, 2002, passed in appeal No. 473 of 2002 (2001-02) Section 8-A(l-B) of the Act and in appeal No. 474 of 2002 (2001-02) Section 7(4)(b) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the Commissioner/revenue as well as Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party/assessee and with the consent of the parties this revision is disposed of finally at this stage under second proviso to Rule 2 of chapter XXII of the Allahabad High. Court Rules, 1952.

(2.) The opposite party/dealer obtained a registration with effect from January 5, 1993 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as with effect from January 12, 1993 under the Central Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 1999-2000 opposite party/dealer was alleged to have imported the goods in contravention of the provisions of Section 28-A of the "Act" and therefore, security demanded was deposited also for the assessment year 2001-02. The opposite party/ dealer was found to import of 160 bags of supari without genuine documents. Therefore, the goods were released against the security. In those cases the penalty had already been levied by the trade tax authority over the opposite party/dealer. Taking these transactions of illegalities the Trade Tax Department passed provisional assessment order for the month of April, 2001 creating a tax liability against the opposite party/dealer. The opposite party/dealer was directed by the trade tax authority to produce account books which he did not do therefore, a presumption was drawn that the books of accounts are not being maintained by the opposite party/dealer therefore, a security of Rs. 2,00,000 in the form of bank guarantee was demanded from the opposite party/dealer by its order dated January 3, 2002 (annexure2) under Section 8-C(2) of the "Act". For non-compliance of the order notices dated January 9, 2002 and March 4, 2002 were issued to the opposite party/dealer demanding security. In response to the notices the opposite party/dealer appeared before the assessing authority on March 15, 2002 and had filed trial balance and summary of stock but could not produce the regular account books, and the bank guarantee demanded from the opposite party was not deposited therefore, the order under Section 8-A(l-B) of the "Act" was passed and registration granted in favour of the opposite party/dealer was cancelled on March 27, 2002 (annexure 4) for U.P. and under Section 7(4)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act for Central. The first appeal preferred under Section 9 of the "Act" against the above order was rejected by the first. appellate authority on April 19, 2002 (annexure 6). In the second appeal learned Tribunal by order dated May 27, 2002 restored the registration granted in favour of the opposite party/dealer while allowing the second appeal (annexure 7).

(3.) Learned Tribunal has observed that the registration of the opposite party/dealer has been cancelled on different grounds other than grounds mentioned in the notices for cancellation of registration and according to the learned counsel for the opposite party/dealer, notices mentioned are nqt in consonance to the provisions of the "Act" and as such no ground for cancellation of registration has been existing whereas learned Standing Counsel has vehemently persuaded and justified the stand of revenue and supported the judgment of the assessing officer as well as the first appellate authority.