Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) This revision has been preferred by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment dated 13th September, 1985, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut, relating to assessment year 1967-68.
(2.) Assessee carried on business in kerosene oil in the assessment year in question. Respondent-assessee's accounts were accepted under Rule 41(7) of the Rules. Subsequently on the basis of information received from the Indian Oil Corporation proceedings under Section 21 of the Act were initiated against the respondent-assessee and the Sales Tax Officer passed assessment order under Section 21 of the Act imposing tax liability of Rs. 14,192.64. In first appeal filed by the respondent-assessee the case was remanded by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) for reassessment. The assessing authority after remand determined the tax liability at Rs. 14,192.64. again. First appeal filed by the respondent-assessee before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) failed. Respondent-assessee feeling aggrieved preferred revision. The revising authority remanded the case back to the assessing authority for reassessment. After remand the assessing authority again maintained the tax liability of Rs. 14,192.64. First appeal filed by the assessee before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) failed. Respondent-assessee feeling aggrieved preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. The second appeal was heard by Division Bench comprising of Sri D. D. Srivastava and Sri Mahesh Prasad. Sri D. D. Srivastava accepted the contention of the assessee and declared the assessee non-assessable while Sri Mahesh Prasad dismissed the appeal of respondent-assessee. On account of difference of opinion the matter was referred to third member under Section 10(12) of the Act and third member Sri Om Prakash, President, Sales Tax Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow, held that proceedings under Section 21 of the Act were wholly unjustified and the assessment order passed by the assessing authority was not sustainable.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the orders passed by the President, Sales Tax Tribunal, as well as of Sri D. D. Srivastava. Sri O. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the Revenue, has not been able to point out any error in the order of the President, Sales Tax Tribunal, as well as of Sri D. D. Srivastava, who declared the assessee non-assessable. The President, Sales Tax Tribunal, has given valid reasons in holding that the goods sold in Delhi branch could not be included in assessee's U. P. sales and it could not be treated as assessee's escaped sale turnover. The findings are supported by various invoices issued by the Indian Oil Corporation and in my opinion the findings recorded by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent-assessee are based on sound reasons and relevant materials on the record and the same does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.;