RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision under Section 11 of the U P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated May 30, 2000 relating to the assessment year 1997 -98 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
(2.) THE applicant was carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of sandal wood oil and perfumery. The assessing authority had rejected the books of account mainly on account of non -maintenance of manufacturing account under Section 12(2) of the Act and difference in stock found at the time of survey dated July 23, 1997. Claim of job -work had also been rejected and it was treated as inter -State sales. The assessing authority had estimated the suppressed sales at Rs. 75 lacs on the purchases and also levied the tax under Section 3AAAA of the Act at Rs. 3 lacs. In first appeal, the turnover of suppressed sales was reduced to Rs. 30 lacs. Being aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has sustained the books of account and estimated the suppressed turnover at Rs. 20 lacs. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has estimated the suppressed sales mainly on the ground of non -maintenance of manufacturing account under Section 12(2) of the Act, and difference in the stock found at the time of survey. He submitted that both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Rs. 20 lacs were estimated towards the suppressed sales. He submitted that the Trade Tax Revision No. 877 of 2000 filed against the order under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 has been allowed by this Court on July 26, 2002 Munna Lal Sons and Co, Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax. and the disclosed turnover had been accepted. The learned Standing counsel submitted that a huge difference at Rs. 16 lacs was found in the stock at the time of survey dated July 23, 1997 and inasmuch as, the applicant had not maintained the manufacturing account under Section 12(2) of the Act. He submitted that the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Girja Shanker Awanish Kumar reported in [1997] 104 STC 130 : [1997] UPTC 213, held that non -maintenance of manufacturing account under Section 12(2) of the Act, is not a technical default and the books of account is liable to be rejected and the turnover has to be estimated on the basis of best judgment assessment. He submitted that this Court while deciding the revision under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, has not considered the decision of apex court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Girja Shanker Awanish Kumar [1997] 104 STC 130 : [1997] UPTC 213, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said decision.;