- (1.) M. C. AGARWAL, J. These two revision petitions under section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act are directed against a common order dated September 19, 1996, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Agra, whereby it dismissed the dealer's second appeals for assessment year 1985-86 and 1988-89.
(2.) I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri H. R. Misra, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondent. The revisionist is a dealer in vanaspati ghee. Its head office and factory is at Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan. In the year 1985-86 it set up a sales depots at Agra for selling its vegetable ghee at Agra. It transferred its stock to the said depot from where the sales were effected. For assessment year 1985-86 it returned a turnover of Rs. 34,39,423. The assessing officer took the view that the invoice price at which the goods were transferred to the Agra depot showed the value of the goods at Rs. 36,04,227. In addition there were certain expenses on transport, storage, etc. , and, therefore, according to him the sale price could not be Rs. 34,39,423. He estimated the turnover at Rs. 50,00,000. On appeal the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the turnover to Rs. 38,00,000 and the Tribunal affirmed the turnover as reduced.
(3.) FOR assessment year 1988-89 the dealer had returned its turnover at Rs. 39,62,336 against the invoice value at Rs. 39,48,350 and for similar reasons the assessing officer determined the turnover at Rs. 45,00,000. It was reduced to Rs. 42,00,000 by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals ). The Tribunal has affirmed the same. Learned counsel for the revisionist took me through the orders of the authorities below to point out that the dealer's books of accounts have not been rejected and no adverse circumstance whatsoever was found against the assessee and, therefore, the enhancement in the turnover was illegal. It was also pointed out that the depot at Agra had not purchased the goods and what was shown in the invoice was the approximate value which cannot be equated with purchase price and no case of under-invoicing having been directed. There was no reason not to accept the returned turnover. He placed reliance on Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. , Lucknow v. Saurashtra Chemicals [1996] 100 STC 448 (All.); 1996 UPTC 178. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, repeated the view taken by the authorities below and asserted that the enhancement in the turnover was justified. A reading of the order of the Tribunal would show that the books of accounts had been regularly maintained by the dealer and no defects therein was noticed. In fact the books of accounts have not been rejected nor is there any observation that they were unreliable. No case of under-invoicing was even attempted to be made out. There is nothing to show that in fact the dealer suffered a loss in this business. There is no mention anywhere that the price at which the dealer claims to have sold its goods was lower than the prevailing market price. Admittedly, the value mentioned in the pro forma invoice was not the purchase price of the goods. It was only the approximate value of the goods or the value at which the dealer expected the goods to be sold. The members of the Tribunal do not seem to be capable of even appreciating this and they have mentioned the figure as the purchase price.;