GOODWILL TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 25.09.1999 relating to the assessment year 1981-82.

(2.) Applicant is a transporter and engaged in the business of transporting the goods of the various parties from one place to another place. Ex-parte assessment order was passed against the applicant on the basis of the information received from the Fatehpuri Sikri Check Post that the applicant had obtained Form-34, which could not surrendered at the exit check post. Since the order passed was ex-parte, the same was set aside in the appeal and the matter was remanded back to the assessing authority to pass the assessment order afresh after providing opportunity to the applicant. In pursuance thereof assessment proceedings was taken up by the assessing authority. As against the 19 transactions, applicant furnished the evidences relating to 10 transactions to establish that the goods had gone outside the State of U.P. and Form-34 was surrendered at the exit check post. In respect of 9 transactions, applicant claimed that such transaction did not relate to it and requested that Form-34 and other documents may be confronted but the same could not be confronted and the assessing authority drawn adverse inference and assessed the applicant in respect of the said transactions. Applicant filed appeal before Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Agra. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Agra vide order dated 30.03.1992 allowed the appeal and again remanded back the matter to the assessing authority with the direction to the assessing authority to make detailed enquiry. It was further directed that in respect of the alleged Form-34, complete details should be provided to the applicant and in the absence of Form-34, necessary details be obtained from Panji-3 and be confronted to the applicant. It appears that in pursuance of the appellate order, assessing authority tried to obtain Panji-3 register from the entry check post but the same could not be obtained on the ground that it was not traceable. Assessing authority, however, drawn adverse inference against 9 Form-34 on the ground that in respect of the said Form-34, no evidence had been adduced by the applicant to prove that the said Form-34 were surrendered at the exit check post and the goods had gone outside the State of U.P. Assessing authority observed that when applicant could furnish the evidences in respect of those Form-34 in respect of which also Form-34 and Panji-3 were not confronted, the applicant could also furnish the evidence in respect of the alleged 9 Form-34 also. In the absence of any evidence of their being surrendered at the exit check post, assessing authority presumed that the goods have been sold inside the State of U.P. and accordingly, assessment order was passed. Appeal filed against the assessment order was rejected by the first appellate authority. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which has also been rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.