- (1.) These two revisions arise out of a common order dated December 23, 1994 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 458 of 1991 (1985-86) and Second Appeal No. 629 of 1991 (1985-86) and can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the revisionist and Sri M. Manglik for the respondent.
(2.) Proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Brief facts of the aforesaid case are: Assessment order of the respondent-assessee was passed on December 10, 1989 in which no tax was imposed. An information was received from the Trade Tax Officer that the assessee has sold 342 kg. mentha oil to a firm M/s. Ajmani Chemicals, Rampur, which sale being not verifiable from the account books and documents submitted by the assessee at the time of original assessment. A belief was formed that the turnover has escaped the assessment to tax and therefore notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued which was duly served on the assessee. In reply to the notice the assessee appeared and filed his reply. The assessee objected to very initiation of proceedings on the ground that there was no material to come to the conclusion that any turnover has escaped assessment. The Trade Tax Officer vide his order dated September 27, 1990 passed reassessment order imposing tax liability of Rs. 35,800. Against the said order dated September 27, 1990 an appeal was filed before the Assistant Commissioner Qudicial) being Appeal No. 822 of 1990. The appellate authority confirmed the reassessment order and dismissed the appeal. Against the order of first appellate authority Second Appeal No. 458 of 1991 was filed by the assessee which has been allowed by the Tribunal against which order the present revision has been filed. The question which has been raised in this revision is "whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified to hold that the proceedings initiated under Section 21 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act were not justified.
(3.) The facts giving rise to revision No. 828 of 1995 are: The assessee-respondent was granted recognition certificate on June 9, 1985 under Section 4B of the Act, 1948 for purchase of mentha oil (raw material). For the year 1985-86 assessment order was passed on June 21, 1989 and books of account of the dealer were accepted. The dealer disclosed the purchase of mentha oil direct from farmers in his accounts but on inquiry it was alleged by the department that the dealer actually made purchase from M/s. Ashia Chemicals, Rampur, where those farmers get extracted their oil and sold it to Ashia Chemicals. The assessing authority after affording opportunity to the dealer vide order dated September 26, 1990 cancelled the recognition certificate from June 9, 1985. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the dealer .preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who vide order dated March 25, 1991 allowed the appeal of the dealer. The Commissioner of Sales Tax filed a Second Appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal which has been dismissed by the order dated December 28, 1994 against which the revision has been filed by the revisionist. The question raised in the revision is "whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trade Tax Tribunal is justified to dismiss the appeal of the Department to hold that the assessee has not violated the condition of recognition certificate".;