HONEY FURNITURES Vs. COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Piyush Agarwal, advocate on behalf of revisionist and learned standing counsel on behalf of the department.

(2.) THESE four trade tax revisions have been filed against a common judgment and order dated March 10, 2006, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench -I, Kanpur in respect of assessment years 1984 -85, 1985 -86, 1986 -87, and 1987 -88. The assessee claimed to be non -taxable having regard to the turnover. However on the basis of survey conducted on November 28, 1987, the assessing authority, vide order dated July 14, 1993, determined the turnover of the assessee at Rs. 1,70,000 (rupees one lac seventy thousand only) for the assessment year 1984 -85, Rs. 1,90,000 (rupees one lac ninety thousand only) for the assessment year 1985 -86, Rs. 2,30,000 (rupees two lac thirty thousand only) for the assessment year 1986 -87, and Rs. 2,60,000 (rupees two lac sixty thousand only) for the assessment year 1987 -88. Accordingly tax liability was fastened upon the assessee. Feeling aggrieved by the order so passed by the assessing authority dated July 14, 1993, the assessee filed first appeals (four in number) under Section 9 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act before the Commissioner, Trade Tax, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, which was numbered as Appeal Nos. 975 of 1993, 974 of 1993, 973 of 1993 and 972 of 1993.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the assessee that admittedly survey had taken place on November 28, 1987, which can have no relevance qua the assessment of previous years, specifically when there was no other evidence for holding that the turnover as disclosed by the assessee in previous years was incorrect. In support thereof, the assessee has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Charan Singh Nand Kishore, Shikohabad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 2001 UPTC 782 as well as in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Alauddin Sugar Industries, Bareilly reported in [2001] UPTC 294.