RAMESH CHANDRA SHASHIKANT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated February 27, 2003 for the assessment years 1984 -85, 1985 -86 and 1988 -89.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the applicant was carrying on the business of foodgrain, etc., and during the years under consideration, dispatched goods for sale to alleged consignment agent Ganga Enterprises, Calcutta through the transport companies Allahabad Azamgarh Forwarding Agencies, Allahabad Janpur Road Lines, Allahabad and Allahabad Gora -khpur Road Lines. In support of the claim that the goods were dispatched to Calcutta for sale through consignment agent, form F obtained from such consignment agent was furnished before the assessing authority. It appears that the assessing authority doubted the transaction and form F issued by the consignment agent, and inquires were made from the transport companies as well as Ganga Enterprises, Calcutta. According to the assessing authority, the transporters denied to have issued any such G. Rs and the transportation of the alleged goods to Calcutta and on inquiry, Ganga Enterprises, Calcutta denied to have received any such goods and to have sold any goods on behalf of the applicant and form F was issued after taking the commission. Before the assessing authority when the aforesaid inquiry was confronted, the applicant sought opportunity for the cross -examination to the transport companies and Ganga Enterprises, Calcutta from whom the inquiries were made behind the back of the applicant. It also appears that when such inquires were confronted to the applicant, an affidavit of Ganga Enterprises, Calcutta was filed admitting the receipt of the goods and sale by it on behalf of the applicant. The assessing authority without giving opportunity of cross -examination to the Ganga Enterprises, Calcutta and to the transport companies had drawn adverse inference and held that the goods had not been moved outside the State of U. P. from inside the State of U. P. The assessing authority treating the transaction as intra -State sales and levied the tax.

(3.) THE Tribunal though admitted that the dealer had sought opportunity of cross -examining the transport companies and Ganga Enterprises, Calcutta and had also mentioned that an affidavit of Ganga Enterprises, Calcutta was filed admitting the receipt of the goods. But the order of the first appellate authority rejecting the claim of the cross -examination of the transport companies and Ganga Enterprises, Calcutta have been upheld on the ground that Ganga Enterprises, Calcutta was the agent of the applicant and the applicant should have produced Ganga Enterprises, Calcutta. The Tribunal further held that the dealer submitted that since the matter has become quite old it should not be remanded. It means, the dealer does not want opportunity to adduce the evidence.