- (1.) Heard Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned standing counsel.
(2.) The following questions of law have been raised in the instant revision: (1) Whether, in view of the judgment of this honourable court in the case of Anup Lal Sohan Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1987 UPTC 1122 and Malik Singh Int Bhatta v. Commissioner of Sales Tax,1989 75 STC 381 , the account books can be rejected if the same has not been shown at the time of survey ? (ii) Whether, in view of the judgment of this honourable court in the case of Tara Chand Niranjan Das v. Commissioner of Sales Tax,1986 UPTC 976, the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in drawing the adverse view against the applicant that the information about the closure of the brick kiln has not been given ? (iii) Whether in view of the judgment of this honourable court in the case of Kanti Swaroop Agarwal, reported in [1985] UPTC 1066, the rate fixed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is justified ?
(3.) The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1986-87. Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, very fairly submitted that he is not pressing question No. (i) as the same is covered against the assessee by the decision of the apex court in Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. v. Mohan Brickfield, 2006 148 STC 638 ;