- (1.) A learned Single Judge while hearing the present revision found that there is conflict of opinion expressed by the coordinate Benches in Bhoopal Singh and Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax,1990 UPTC 103 and Autar Singh Delip Singh Saluja v. Commissioner of Sales Tax,1990 UPTC 454 on the one hand and in Smt. Birmesh Agrawal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.,1987 AllTaxJ 28 and Satish Chandra Manoj Kumar v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.,1987 AllTaxJ 29, on the other hand and, therefore, had referred the case to be decided by a larger Bench. Facts of the Case
(2.) The applicant is a registered dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of bricks. For the Assessment Year 1977-78, it disclosed its total taxable turnover at Rs. 37,542.99. The Sales Tax Officer, Saharanpur vide order dated 14.1.1983 rejected the account-books of the applicant and estimated the turnover at Rs. 79,255/-. The applicant preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, Saharanpur. The appeal was allowed in part vide order dated 19.6.1985. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) confirmed the rejection of account-books and estimated the turnover of bricks at Rs. 59,050/-. Aggrieved thereby the applicant filed a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur. The Tribunal vide order dated 5"' August, 1988 has rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Saharanpur.
(3.) As the applicant was unrepresented we had requested Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned Counsel, to assist the Court as amicus curie. Rival Submissions:;