VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) THESE two trade tax revisions have been filed by the dealer, M/s. North Star India Pvt. Ltd. against the judgment and order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Ghaziabad dated February 25, 2004 whereby the two appeals filed by the dealer were party allowed granting some relief in the demand raised under the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
(2.) THE dealer is a registered company both under the State and Central Act. It is carrying on business of manufacturing, selling and trading of poultry feed, feeds supplement, fibre glass and cooling tower spares. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1998 -99. In its return the dealer declared total taxable sales under the U. P. Trade Tax Act to the tune of Rs. 61,64,538 and admitted tax liability of Rs. 2,40,692. Under the Central Sales Tax Act the dealer declared its taxable turnover to be Rs. 3,21,90,277 and admitted tax liability of Rs. 7,21,932. With regard to the liability under the State Act the assessing authority rejected the accounts book of the dealer based on the survey made on January 28, 1999 and estimated the total taxable turnover to be Rs. 91,95,988 and raised a demand of Rs. 5,75,718 on such turnover. This order of assessment dated January 22, 2002 contained certain mistakes apparent on the face of record. Accordingly, application was filed by the dealer under Section 22 of the Act. The assessing officer passed fresh order on April 29, 2002 under Section 22 of the Act and reduced the demand of tax to be Rs. 5,42,266.
(3.) UNDER the Central Act, the assessing officer again made an estimate of turnover to the tune of Rs. 3,38,58,827 and determined a tax liability of Rs. 24,76,334. Here again an application under Section 22 of the Act was filed and the tax liability was reduced by Rs. 63,973, thus bringing to it Rs. 24,12,361. The dealer filed two appeals under Section 9 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) dismissed the appeal under the Central Act, whereas under the State Act the liability of tax was reduced by Rs. 40,064. Against the same, dealer preferred two second appeals before the Tribunal. Both these appeals were partly allowed by the impugned order and demand of tax was reduced by Rs. 50,000 under both the Acts. Aggrieved by the same present revisions have been filed. Central Act: The questions of law raised in the two revisions are as follows: (i) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in confirming the order passed by assessing authority, treating the stock transfer as an inter -State sale ? (ii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in imposing the tax liability upon the applicant/revisionist under the Central Sales Tax Act ? (iii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in disbelieving the stock transfer made by revisionist to its head office and treating the same as inter -State sale ? (iv) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in not granting the benefit of form F duly furnished by the revisionist ? (v) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in confirming the best judgment assessment order and rejecting the books of account ? (vi) Whether in any view of the matter the impugned order of the Tribunal is sustainable in the eyes of law ? (vii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in not considering the submission of the applicant/revisionist ? (viii) Whether in any view of the matter the order of the Tribunals just and proper seeing the fact and circumstances of the present case ? State Act: (i) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in confirming the rejection of books of account and also the best judgement assessment order passed by the assessing authority ? (ii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in determining the taxable turnover in most excessive and even recording favourable findings in favour of revisionist, even then rejecting the same ? (iii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in not considering the submission in respect of explanation offered before the surveying authority regarding SNKET Nos. 1 and 2 respectively ? (iv) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is just and proper in confirming the orders passed by the authority below ? (v) Whether in any view of the matter the impugned order of the Tribunal is sustainable in the eyes of law ? (vi) Whether in any view of the matter the order of the Tribunals is just and proper seeing the facts and circumstances of the present case ? (vii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in not considering the submission of the applicant/revisionist in regards the challans available at the time of survey ? ;