Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant. Despite the fact that the affidavit of service has been filed by the applicant no one has put in appearance on behalf of the dealer -opposite party.
(2.) THE issues and questions of law raised in these three revisions being common they have been taken together and are being decided by this common order. These three revisions have been filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 relating to the assessment year 1999 -2000, with regard to three different dealers. The questions of law sought to be raised in these revisions are: (i) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in reducing the sale rate of sand at Rs. 30 without any basis on record? (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is justified in estimating the taxable turnover below the royalty paid by the dealer inasmuch as the royalty paid by the dealer forms part of the taxable turnover of the dealer?
(3.) ALL the three dealers carry on business of mining of sand. For carrying on mining activity a person is required to obtain a lease for which he has to pay royalty to the State. In the case of Mathura Prasad, ( 2005 TTR 2584 ) the royalty paid was Rs. 10,26,000 whereas the taxable turnover was declared by the dealer as Rs. 7,14,000. In the case of Prem Chandra, ( 2005 TTR 2585 ) royalty paid was Rs. 4,92,040 and the taxable turnover was declared as Rs. 3,10,027. In the third case of Harish Chandra royalty deposited was Rs. 4,04,378 and the taxable turnover was declared as Rs. 59,974.;