RUCHI ORGANICS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been filed assailing the order dated 10.8.2018 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur Bench III, Kanpur disposing of the appeal filed by the revisionist against order of the first appellate authority passed on the stay application requiring the revisionist to deposit 30% of the disputed amount. The Tribunal has modified the order under appeal and has granted stay on the condition of deposit of 15% of the disputed tax amount within 30 days.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Tribunal has not applied its mind to the strong prima facie case of the revisionist by observing that the said issue was not required to be decided at this stage, as it would be a matter of consideration at the time of final decision of the appeal. It is submitted that the assessment was made by the assessing authority primarily on the basis of a survey conducted at the factory premises where the stock of raw material and finished goods was determined on estimated basis. It is urged that there is a miniscule difference of less than 1% in the raw material and 1.5% in the finished goods. He has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Trimurti Sugandh Co. Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P., Lucknow [2016] 62 NTN DX 241, wherein this Court has held that where a best judgement is made, it involves certain guess work, but the same must be fair, informed, intelligent and referable to some valid or cogent basis. A very small difference based on best assessment, which in that case was to the extent of 0.67%, was not found to be sufficient to reject the books of the assessee. The submission is that the said aspect, though specifically argued before the Tribunal, was ignored from consideration. It is further submitted that the revisionist had filed its bank statement to demonstrate that its financial condition is precarious and in case unconditional stay is not granted, the very object of filing of the appeal would stand frustrated. However, the said aspect has also not been taken into consideration.

(3.) Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal was justified in directing the revisionist to deposit 15% of the disputed amount. However, he is not in a position to support the order of the Tribunal in so far as it refuses to go into the issue of prima facie case of the revisionist.