Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) - Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) These two revisions with the consent of parties have been taken up for disposal together as both pertain to Assessment Years 2008-09. While Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 942 of 2011 relates to the assessment proceedings taken against the revisionist for tax under the U.P. VAT Act, 20081, Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 941 of 2011 relates to the consequential assessment undertaken with reference to the entry tax liability of the revisionist under the provisions of U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2008. The Tribunal in terms of the order impugned has proceeded to uphold the action of the assessing authority which had proceeded to reject the books of account as maintained by the assessee and has consequently undertaken a best judgment assessment coming to hold that turnover of Rs. 2,35,00,000/- had escaped assessment and consequently levied additional tax. The quantum of escaped turnover had been reduced by the Tribunal to Rs. 14,00,000/-.
(3.) The facts which are not in dispute are as follows: The assessee is stated to be a partnership firm which is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Gutkha. It is stated to have commenced its manufacturing operations on or about May 2008. For the relevant assessment year the requisite declaration in respect of purchases and sales were made. The business premises of the assessee are said to have been surveyed on 5 May 2008 and 12 August 2008 and it is the material gathered during the course of the survey so undertaken which formed the bedrock of the proceedings subsequently taken by the assessing authority. From a reading of the order of the Tribunal the following facts emerge. During the course of the survey undertaken, it was found that the difference in the quantity of raw material as actually found and duly recorded, was of 227.24 Kgs. Similarly, in respect of the finished product the survey team noted that the quantity thereof was shown as 1596.795 Kgs whereas the actual quantity of finished product was found to be 4417 Kgs. It is not disputed (and this fact is so recorded even by the Tribunal) that the relevant books of account and other records were produced for the inspection of the survey team. In fact, the Tribunal notes that the survey team did not record at any place that documents were not provided to them or that certain documents or records which may have been demanded were not produced. The Tribunal then proceeds to record that apart from the relevant books of account which were demanded and so shown to the survey team other relevant material also appears to have been presented to the survey team and there is no certification by the members of the survey team that any document which may have been called for was not produced.;