LALMAN INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, by the dealer, M/s. Lalman Industries, Sitapur are directed against the order of the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Lucknow dated 20th March, 1980, dismissing Revision Applications Nos. 699 of 1977 and 700 of 1977.

(2.) The applicant dealt in manufacture and sale of groundnut oil. In due course it filed returns for the years 1972-73 (U.P.) and 1973-74 (Central). In those returns it disclosed its net purchase of oil-seed at Rs. 3,81,904.61. Sale of self manufactured oil in the course of inter-State sale was disclosed at Rs. 18,944 on which tax liability was admitted at 1 per cent only. Inter-State sale of oil was disclosed at Rs. 3,24,410.45 claiming exemption on sale worth Rs. 74,961.95 on the ground that it was made to vegetable oil manufactured against Kha forms, net turnover was disclosed at Rs. 2,49,448.50. However, at the time of assessment the assessee neither produced any Kha form nor any C form with the result the exemption claimed in the case and the benefit of reduced rate of tax in the case relating to inter-State sale was denied to the assessee. The assessing officer rejected the disclosed turnover in both the proceedings (U.P. as well as Central) and resorted to best judgment assessment and fixed the net purchase of oil-seed at Rs. 4,25,000 and net sale of self manufactured oil in U.P. at Rs. 3,50,000 and that in the course of inter-State sale at Rs. 22,000. The turnover of the inter-State sale was taxed at the rate of 10 per cent.

(3.) Aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed two appeals before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax. After filing the said appeals he made an application before the assessing authority under Section 22 of the Sales Tax Act for rectification of the assessment order on the ground that he was furnishing 7 Kha forms and one C form before that authority. The assessee claimed that the assessment order should be rectified after taking into account the said forms. It appears that the Sales Tax Officer did not pass any order on the said application for rectification. However, when the appeals came up for hearing before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, the assessee again claimed that he should be given the benefit of forms Kha and C filed by it before the assessing authority and the appellate authority should modify the assessment order accordingly. The appellate authority vide its order dated 25th June, 1977, dismissed the two appeals. It affirmed the action of the assessing authority in making the best judgment assessment and also held that the quantum fixed in each, case was not such which deserved to be interfered with. The assessee then took the matter before the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax [Revision Application No. 699 of 1977 (1972-73) U.P. and Revision Application No. 700 of 1977 (1973-74) Central]. In both the cases it claimed the rejection of the account books by the assessing authority was not justified and questioned the correctness of the quantum of turnover determined by those authorities. Before the Judge (Revisions) the assessee also claimed that, it should have been given the benefit of forms Kha and C which he had filed with his application under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act before the sales tax authorities and that the tax should have been calculated after taking into account those forms.