COMMISSIONER SALES TAX Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is by the Commissioner of Sales Tax against an order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Faizabad, on 18th April, 1981. By this order, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Varanasi, remanding the case of the dealer-opposite party for the year 1971-72 for further enquiry to the assessing authority.

(2.) The case of the dealer was that he had not carried on any business of manufacture and sale of bricks during the year in question. Since the dealer had not appeared before the assessing authority, an ex parte order of assessment was made holding that the dealer had manufactured and sold bricks during the year. The taxable turnover was determined by estimate at Rs. 1,65,000 and a tax liability of Rs. 11,500 was raised. The ex parte assessment order was assailed by the dealer in an appeal under Section 9 of the Act.

(3.) The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, who heard that appeal was of the opinion that proper enquiry should be made about the question whether in fact, the dealer had manufactured bricks and sold them during the year. Some certificates were filed by the dealer who also filed an affidavit stating that he had not manufactured bricks during the year. A report was called for by the Assistant Commissioner from the assessing authority under Rule 68(8) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules. The Assistant Commissioner, as is clear from his order dated 27th September, 1978, was of the opinion that proper enquiry had not been made and that on the material on record, it could not be found out with certainty whether bricks were actually manufactured and sold by the dealer during the year in question or not. The Assistant Commissioner noticed the various pieces of evidence on the record. He remanded the case to the assessing authority with the direction to make further enquiry and observed that in case it appeared from that enquiry that the dealer had not manufactured bricks during the year in question, he will have to be declared as non-taxable. The Assistant Commissioner did not record any finding on the merits of the dispute himself. Aggrieved, the dealer took the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal.