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 February 1, 2003.
(2.) THE applicant owned brick -kiln and was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of bricks. The applicant was subjected to assessment for the sales of bricks under Section 7 of the Act. The assessing authority initiated the proceeding under Section 21 of the Act on the basis of the information received from the Director of Movement (Coal), U.P., Lucknow that the applicant was allotted three boxes and four boxes of coal in the month of January, February, and March, 1993. The applicant appeared before the assessing authority and submitted that against the said allotment, coals were not purchased and brought inside the State of U.P. The assessing authority however had not accepted the plea of the applicant and had presumed that the coals against the said allotment had been purchased and imported inside the State of U.P. and subsequently sold. Accordingly, the turnover of coals at Rs. 8,25,000 was estimated. Being aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, the applicant filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Trade Tax, Meerut. Before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), the applicant filed a certificate of District Supply Officer, Meerut certifying that against the said allotment, there is no information about the import of coal in the district. Relying upon the said certificate, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the order passed under Section 21 of the Act and allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), the Commissioner, Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the first appellate authority and restored the order of the assessing authority. The Tribunal held that the dealer had not filed any certificate or proved that from the colliery the coal allotted to the applicant was not lifted. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of this Court in the Tirugi Narayan Pandey v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [2001] 123 STC 344 : [2001] UPTC 72 in which it has been held that burden under Section 12A of the Act lies upon the dealer to prove that the allotted coal had not been imported.
(3.) HEARD Sri K. Saksena, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri K.M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel.;