LAWS(ALL)-2008-7-313

COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX Vs. KANSAL IRON STORE

Decided On July 30, 2008
COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX Appellant
V/S
Kansal Iron Store Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTIONING the legality and validity of the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Meerut, in Second Appeal No. 86 of 1996, dated May 31, 2000, the present revision has been filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax.

(2.) THE dispute relates to the assessment year 1984 -85. The dealer -opposite party was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of oil. It disclosed its turnover at Rs. 36,94,477 but admitted no tax liability. In spite of opportunity granted to the dealer -opposite party, it failed to participate in the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the assessing authority by the order dated October 21, 1995, after rejecting the contentions of the dealer that the said turnover is not taxable, levied the tax to the tune of Rs. 2,57,900. The case set out by the dealer -opposite party was that it had made purchases within the State of U.P. and since the oil is taxable at the point of "manufacture" or "import", no liability can be fastened on it. The assessment order was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal No. 535 of 1995. The appellate authority reduced the turnover, but upheld the rejection of the account books. The matter was carried to the Tribunal by the applicant as well as by the Department. The appeal filed by the Department was rejected while that of the dealer -opposite party was accepted by the Tribunal by the order under revision.

(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel contends that the Tribunal was not justified in accepting the disclosed turnover for the reason that the dealer admittedly did not produce its account books for verification before any of the authorities below. The case set out by the dealer -opposite party was that the account books have been burnt in fire. The Tribunal having accepted the finding recorded by the first appellate authority that the dealer -opposite party has not made the purchases from the disclosed selling dealers, it was not justified in holding that no tax can be levied on the turnover of the dealer.