VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) THE dealer has filed this revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') against the judgment and order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Aligarh dated June 28, 2006 whereby the second appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. has been partly allowed and tax liability of Rs. 3,23,397 has been imposed on the dealer.
(2.) ALTHOUGH the dealer has framed four questions of law in the memorandum of the revision but all the said questions are interrelated. The only question of law which arises for consideration by this Court is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case manipulated enhanced figure of sale and purchase and stock furnished by the dealer to the bank for the purposes of obtaining loan would amount to relevant material for the purposes of reassessment under Section 21 of the Act and based on these projected figures, reassessment and determination of turnover and tax liability would be justified? The dealer is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of iron and steel. For the assessment year 2000 -01 it disclosed a turnover of Rs. 1,34,931 and admitted liability of trade tax on the said sale at four per cent. The assessing authority after examining the books of account accepted the disclosed turnover and accordingly passed an assessment order on January 30, 2003. Subsequently the assessing authority learnt about certain returns filed by the dealer before the Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Aligarh wherein the sales for the assessment years in question was shown as Rs. 28,17,832 and purchase of Rs. 24,90,385. The opening stock was valued at Rs. 3,54,000 and the closing stock at Rs. 6,75,000. Based upon the said returns filed by the dealer before the bank, the assessing authority issued a show cause notice dated July 28, 2005 as to why proceedings for reassessment under Section 21 of the Act be not initiated. The dealer submitted a reply and explained that the returns filed before the bank had been substantially enhanced and depicted projected figures in the balance sheet, in order to obtain house building loan and also to increase his cash credit limit. Along with his explanation the dealer also furnished an affidavit and a certificate from the bank that the dealer had availed housing loan and the cash credit limit of more than 5.5 lakhs. The assessing authority disbelieved the explanation of the dealer and determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 57,34,934 and accordingly imposed a tax liability of Rs. 3,55,397.24 vide order dated September 30, 2005. The dealer preferred an appeal. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the projected turnover depicted in the balance sheet filed before the bank was only for the purposes of obtaining loan and also for increase of the cash credit limit. It also relied upon two decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Prakash Engineering Company reported in [1970] UPTC 426 and also in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Shri Ram Food reported in [2004] UPTC 680. It further took into consideration actual payment made by the dealer of his telephone bills and electricity bills in the relevant assessment year and also the figures of telephone bills and electricity bills as depicted in the balance sheet before the bank. Aggrieved by judgment of the appellate authority the Commissioner of Trade Tax preferred a second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated June 28, 2006 partly allowed the appeal by reducing the tax liability to Rs. 3,23,397.24 and at the same time maintained the turnover determined by the assessing officer. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.
(3.) I have heard Sri Kunwar Saxena, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the department and have also perused the material on record.;