GULATI, J. - (1.) UNDER section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow, has submitted this statement of the case with the following question of law for the opinion of this court : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case as discussed in my order dated 23rd May, 1968, and in the order of the appellate court dated 23rd April, 1965, the applicant was entitled to get the witnesses relied upon by the assessing authority examined in his presence and further whether he was entitled to cross-examine them."
(2.) THE assessee M/s. Premier Motors (Pvt.) Ltd., Lucknow, is a dealer in motor vehicles. In respect of the assessment year 1958-59 the assessee disclosed a gross turnover of Rs. 35,79,753 and a net turnover of Rs. 21,98,063. While computing its net turnover the assessee had excluded a sum of Rs. 6,66,418.36 being the sale proceeds of 28 vehicles sold at Solan and not at Lucknow. The assessing authority came to the conclusion that out of 28 vehicles, 24 vehicles valued at Rs. 5,84,252.35 had been sold within U.P. and he, therefore, enhanced the assessee's net turnover to that extent. It appears that the Sales Tax Officer (S.I.B.) carried out certain investigation to find out if the vehicles alleged to have been sold by the assessee at Solan were really sold at Solan or were sold inside U.P. In the course of such investigation statement on oath of the manager of K.T. Financiers, Hazratganj, Lucknow, who had financed certain purchasers of the vehicles, was taken and likewise statements of some purchasers were also recorded. The Sales Tax Officer (S.I.B.) submitted a report to the assessing authority on the basis of which the Sales Tax Officer held that out of 28 vehicles, 24 vehicles alleged to have been sold at Solan were in fact sold inside Uttar Pradesh. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had applied for a copy of the report of the Sales Tax Officer (S.I.B.), and had also requested that the witnesses, who were examined by the Sales Tax Officer (S.I.B.) behind the back of the assessee, should be summoned and be examined in its presence so as to enable the assessee to cross-examine them. Both these requests of the assessee were rejected by the assessing authority.
(3.) THE assessee placed against the assessment order and one of the grievances put forward before the appellate authority was that the Sales Tax Officer was not justified in rejecting the request of the assessee for a copy of the report of the Sales Tax Officer (S.I.B.) and for summoning the witnesses who had been examined behind its back.;