COMMISSIONER SALES TAX UTTAR PRADESH LUCKNOW Vs. HAJU MOHD NASIR HAFIZ MOHD YASIN
LAWS(ALL)-1991-9-26
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 11,1991

COMMISSIONER SALES TAX UTTAR PRADESH LUCKNOW Appellant
VERSUS
HAJU MOHD NASIR HAFIZ MOHD YASIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, C. J. - (1.) This revision is preferred by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. , against the judgment and order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Lucknow. Under the said order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the State but allowed the appeals preferred by the assessee in part. The only contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel in this revision is that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the turnover in a sum of Rs. 1,60,000 relating to poppy seeds. The Tribunal has deleted the said turnover relying upon a decision of this Court in Sri Ram Lal Balak Ram v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1986 UPTC 195. The relevant facts are that the assessee carries on business in foodgrains and poppy seeds, etc. For the assessment year 1977-78, he disclosed his net turnover at Rs. 81,551. 02. The return was rejected and the turnover was estimated at Rs. 5 lakhs. The same thing happened with respect to the assessment for the year 1978-79 though the figures are different. The assessing authority has rejected the books produced by the petitioner for various reasons recorded by it and made an estimate of the assessed turnover. The matter ultimately came to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held, after an elaborate consideration of the relevant facts, that the authorities were justified in rejecting the books. It also found that no interference is called for with the estimate of turnover. However, in so far as the turnover relating to poppy seeds was concerned, it deleted the same on the ground that the respondent is neither a manufacturer of poppy seeds nor an importer of poppy seeds and if so, the said turnover cannot be subjected to tax. Reliance was placed upon clause (e) of section 3-A (1 ). In so far as it is relevant, section 3-A (1) (e) reads as follows : " Except as provided in , the tax payable by a dealer under this Act shall be levied, - on the turnover in respect of goods, other than those referred to in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), at the point of sale by the manufacturer or importer at the rate of eight per cent : Provided that the State Government may, from time to time, by notification, modify the rate or point of tax on the turnover in respect of any such goods, with effect from such date as may be notified in that behalf, so, however, that the rate does not exceed eight per cent. " A reading of the said clause shows that in case of goods not falling in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 3-A, the sales tax will be levied at the time of sale by the manufacturer or importer at a particular rate. The question, therefore, arose whether the assessee was a manufacturer or an importer. Evidently there can be no question of a manufacturer in the case of poppy seeds. The only other question is whether he was an importer. No finding has been recorded by the authorities below that the assessee herein was an importer of poppy seeds. Just because his books were rejected, an inference does not arise that he is an importer. There must be some material for raising such inference. For the reasons recorded above, this revision fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.