COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX Vs. SATYA NARAYAN ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions relate to the same dealer namely Satya Narain Amit Kumar. The Revision No. 632 of 1996 is against the regular assessment order for the assessment year 1987- 88 and Revision No. 642 of 1996 is against the reassessment order, under Section 21 of U.P. Trade Tax Act, for the assessment year 1986-87. Both the revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The dealer opposite party carried on the business of purchase and sale of Kirana and Spices etc. For the assessment year 1986- 87 the books of account of the dealer opposite party were accepted in the original assessment proceeding vide order dated 17-1-1990. In the original assessment proceeding the dealer opposite party claimed and it was accepted by the assessing authority that it made sale of Kirana and Masala worth Rs. 14,36,104.77 in the course of export of goods outside the territory of India to Nepal on the basis of Custom certificate submitted by it. Subsequently on verification of the Custom certificate from the Custom office Bhairahwa (Nepal) it was found that the Custom certificates submitted by the dealer opposite party were fake and thus exemption was wrongly granted on such sales in the original assessment proceeding. To assess the escaped turnover the assessing authority initiated proceeding under Section 21 of the Act and levied the tax after giving opportunity of hearing on the turnover of Rs. 14,36,105/-, the alleged turnover of export sale.

(2.) For the assessment year 1987- 88 in the regular assessment proceeding the assessing authority rejected the claim of export sale alleged to have been made by the dealer opposite party to Nepali buyers on the ground that the Custom certificate produced by the dealer opposite party are fake and fabricated one, in view of the letter No. 047/48/1268 dated 14-11-1990 issued by the Custom Officer, Bharirahwa (Nepal). It was also held by the assessing authority that even if the said Custom certificates are taken into account, the sale made to the Nepali dealer at Gorakhpur, does not amount sale made in the course of export sale vide order dated 21-8-1991.

(3.) The dealer opposite party challenged re- assessment order passed for the assessment year 1986- 87 and the assessment order for the assessment year 1987- 88 by way of appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (appeals), who has decided both the appeals by a common order dated 29-1-1992. The Deputy Commissioner (appeals) Trade Tax, dismissed both the appeals. Aggrieved against the order of first appellate authority Second Appeal No. 160 of 1992 relating to the assessment year 1987-88 and Second Appeal No. 161 of 1992 against re- assessment proceeding for the assessment year 1987- 88 were filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by two separate orders both dated 13-2-1996 allowed the aforesaid two Second appeals on almost similar grounds.