BHARATI SAPRU, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist -State and Shri Piyush Agarwal for the respondent -assessee.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed at the instance of the State against an order of the Tribunal dated September 9, 2007 by which the Tribunal has accepted the account books of the assessee and has also held that the plastic boxes -sold by the dealer are taxable at the rate of 2.5 per cent as jewellery boxes while giving the benefit of the provisions of Section 3AB of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Two questions have been referred to in the present revision. (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to hold that the plastic boxes sold by the dealer are taxable at the rate of 2.5 per cent as jewellery boxes ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to accept the account books of the dealer despite the adverse material found at the time of survey on July 24, 1998 indicating otherwise ? The facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in production of the plastic goods such as boxes. For the assessment year 1998 -99, the dealer has declared a total sale of Rs. 80,298 and admitted no tax liability by stating that his production was below the taxable limit. It was the contention of the dealer that he did not have a factory and was producing plastic boxes on job -work basis. A survey was conducted on July 24, 1998 where three workers were found manufacturing plastic boxes on a moulding machine.
(3.) THE dealer admitted that it was paying the alleged job -workers Rs. 1,500 p.m., but did not declare any expenses for electricity, wages, etc. The assessing authority assessed the material on record, rejected the account books of the dealer and assessed him to tax to the extent of Rs. 28,000 on a turnover of Rs. 2,80,000 at the rate of 10 per cent by passing the order dated February 20, 2001.;