Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Punit Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) The present revision has been filed by the assessee. The following question of law has been pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee: "Whether, the learned Tribunal and the authorities below were justified in rejecting the books of accounts of the revisionist without any material and evidence on record while enhancing the selling price by their own notion?"
(3.) Admittedly, the assessee is a dealer in sand. For the A.Y. 2013-14, it had disclosed inter-state purchase of sand made from the State of Bihar. These purchases were admittedly made against the Form nos-XXXVIII issued under the U.P. Vat Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessee had disclosed the purchase price of Rs. 7.70/- per cubic foot and selling price of Rs. 8.00/- per cubic foot. After issuing the show cause notice in that regard, the Assessing Authority did not believe that the transportation expenses had been included in the sale turnover of the assessee and, therefore, rejected the books of accounts of the assessment and made an addition on best judgment assessment basis. He estimated the selling price at Rs. 15.50/- per cubic foot. Upon first appeal, the First Appellate Authority fixed the same at Rs. 13.00/- per cubic foot, and in further appeal, the Tribunal reduced the same to Rs. 10.50/- per cubic foot. However, the rejection of books of accounts had been maintained by all the authorities.;