RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) THESE two revisions under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated June 5, 2004 relating to the assessment year 1991 -92 both under the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
(2.) THE applicant was carrying on the business of foodgrains, oil seed, etc. On the basis of the information received from Mandi Samiti that the applicant was issued 90 gate passes, proceeding under Section 21 of the Act was initiated against the applicant. During the course of assessment proceedings, 59 gate passes were got verified but 31 gate passes could not be verified. The applicant was asked to produce satti bahi and stock register, issued by the Mandi Samiti but the same could not be produced and in its place the stock register and satti bahi as required by the SMI department were produced. The assessing authority treated the information relating to the 31 gate passes as suppressed transactions and accordingly, estimated the turnover both under the U. P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. The applicant filed two appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Bareilly. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated October 9, 1998 dismissed both the appeals. The applicant filed two appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed both the appeals. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(3.) THE applicant has filed supplementary affidavit stating therein that the applicant was not required to maintain stock register and satti bahi for the issuance of gate pass by the Mandi Samiti and was only required by SMI department to maintain stock register and satti bahi which were produced before the assessing authority. It is further submitted that the Revenue authority did not summon 31 gate passes alleged to have been issued under the signature of the applicant. In the counter -affidavit filed by the assessing authority, the aforesaid averments have not been specifically denied. He submitted that under Section 21 of the Act burden lies upon the Revenue to prove that such transactions relates to the applicant. While in the present case, Revenue fails to discharge its burden, learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.;