Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri. Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) BRIEFLY states the facts of the case are that the applicant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Tobacco Mixed Pan Masala. During the assessment year in question i.e., 1998 -99, certain discrepancies were found and on that basis the assessing authority issued a notice under section 7(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The assessing officer rejected the books of accounts and the disclosed turn over on the ground that day to day entries have not been done in the register of raw -material. It was also noticed that vide bill No. 170 dated 12.12.1998 of Awadh Products and Bill No. 348 dated 12.12.1998 of M/s. Kanchan Udyog, Kanpur, certain quantity of catechu was purchased, which was not entered in the books of accounts. The assessee took the stand that the said catechu was directly sent for grinding and since it was not received that day and as such it was not entered. The discrepancies in maintaining stock register of raw -material was found to be undisputed. The assessing authority rejected the books of accounts and made addition of Rs. 20 lacs in the sale turn over disclosed by the assessee and accordingly, the trade tax was levied. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Agra being Appeal No. 1126 of 2001, which was allowed by an order dated 1.1.2001. The appellate authority recorded a finding that no discrepancy was found in manufacturing, purchase and sale and as such the disclosed sale of the applicant -assessee cannot be rejected. He therefore, deleted the entire additions made by the assessing authority in the sale turn over of the applicant -assessee.
(3.) AGGRIEVED with the order of the appellate authority, the Commissioner, Trade Tax preferred Second Appeal No. 175 of 2001 before the Member Commercial Tax Tribunal Bench -II, Agra. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of the order. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has referred and relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Luxco Electronics, Johnstonganj, Allahabad v. C.S.T. ( : 1981 UPTC -36) and observed that non maintenance of stock register renders the books of accounts to be rejected.;