VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.D. Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel representing the opposite party.
(2.) THE dealer has preferred 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, Meerut -1st Bench, Camp, Muzafarnagar, dated August 20, 2003. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1997 -98. The dealer had disclosed total sales at Rs. 3,01,35,916. Out of which the sales within the State which were taxable were quantified at Rs. 27,13,804 whereas taxable central sales were quantified at Rs. 6,41,451. The assessing officer based upon material on record specially the evidence collected during the survey, dated March 10, 1998 came to the conclusion that the account books had not been properly maintained and were liable to be rejected. After rejection of the account books it estimated the total turnover at Rs. 3,83,54,324 out of which the taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 99,32,212. The dealer preferred appeal which was partly allowed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who, though confirmed the rejection of the account books, found that the assessment made by the assessing authority was a little higher. It accordingly determined the taxable sale within the State at Rs. 25,00,000 and for the Central at Rs. 5,00,000. The dealer preferred second appeal both with regard to the Central as also with regard to the State assessment. The Department also filed two second appeals. The Tribunal decided all the four appeals by a common judgment. It partly allowed the dealer's appeal for the taxable turnover under the State Act. It fully allowed the appeal with regard to the Central Act and dismissed both the appeals of the Department. The dealer has come up before this Court against judgment of the Tribunal partly allowing the appeal under the State Act.
(3.) SUBMISSION of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that neither rejection of the account books was justified in the facts and circumstances nor the estimate of the turnover made by the Tribunal could be sustained as it was based on mere conjectures.;