DAYAL TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order of the Tribunal dated 19.6.2018 passed in Second Appeal No. 274 of 2018 relating to financial year 2014-2015. Revisionist is a registered dealer engaged in the sale and purchase of Pan Masala, Gutkha etc. An inspection is said to have been conducted at the premises of the revisionist on 6.1.2015, wherein, document nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 relating to the concerned year have been found, which related to sale of Pan Masala, Gutkha etc. and had not been reflected in the books of account of the assessee. The assessee has taken a defence before the authorities that these transactions/records do not relate to the revisionist inasmuch as all such materials relates to independent hawkers who usually kept their records in the premises of the revisionist during night. Affidavits of these hawkers have also been filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, has not accepted the defence of the assessee on the ground that assessee has failed to establish that these documents do not relate to it.

(2.) The order of the Tribunal is essentially challenged on the ground that affidavits of independent hawkers, which have been duly brought on record, have not been taken note of by the Tribunal and, therefore, there is a failure on part of the Tribunal to refer to relevant materials on record. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also urged that the Pan Masala, Gutkha etc. is not covered under the VAT Act and, therefore, liability of tax can be imposed only on manufacturer or importer. Submission is that since assessee is neither manufacturer nor importer, therefore, the liability to pay tax cannot be imposed upon it.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has placed the order of the Tribunal in extenso to contend that the findings of the Tribunal are based on materials on record.