COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX Vs. MATHURA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant. Despite the fact that the affidavit of service has been filed by the applicant no one has put in appearance on behalf of the dealer -opposite party.

(2.) THE issues and questions of law raised in these three revisions being common they have been taken together and are being decided by this common order.

(3.) ALL the three dealers carry on business of mining of sand. For carrying on mining activity a person is required to obtain a lease for which he has to pay royalty to the State. In the case of Mathura Prasad, ( 2005 TTR 2584 ) the royalty paid was Rs. 10,26,000 whereas the taxable turnover was declared by the dealer as Rs. 7,14,000. In the case of Prem Chandra, ( 2005 TTR 2585 ) royalty paid was Rs. 4,92,040 and the taxable turnover was declared as Rs. 3,10,027. In the third case of Harish Chandra royalty deposited was Rs. 4,04,378 and the taxable turnover was declared as Rs. 59,974.