GHANSHYAM DASS BALMUKUND Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a dealer in toilet goods, cosmetics and other articles of general merchandise. It submitted a return of its turnover for the assessment year 1963 -64. That return included the turnover of imported goods liable to tax at single point under Section 3 -A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer made an assessment order dated 30th September, 1965, determining the turnover of imported goods at Rs. 2,60,000.00. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Act. In the memorandum of appeal it mentioned that the turnover of imported goods taxable at single point was Rs. 85,000 and deposited a sum of Rs. 7,001.73 towards the tax admitted by it to be due in respect of that turnover. When the appeal came on for hearing a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Sales Tax Officer that the entire amount of admitted tax had not been deposited by the petitioner. The objection was upheld by the Additional Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, and by his order dated 19th July, 1966, he dismissed the appeal as incompetent. The petitioner applied in revision under Section 10 of the Act to the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, but the revision application has been dismissed by his order dated 3rd February, 1968.

(2.) THE petitioner now prays for certiorari against the order of the Additional Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and of the Judge (Revisions). In support of the objection that the appeal was incompetent because the entire amount of admitted tax had not been deposited by the petitioner, it was pointed out before the Additional Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) that the turnover disclosed by the petitioner in its return and admitted by it during the assessment proceedings was Rs. 1,11,844.02 and not Rs. 85,000 now shown in the memorandum of appeal. It was contended that the turnover disclosed in the return represented the basis for computing the admitted tax liability. The petitioner urged in reply that the turnover of imported single point taxable goods was less than Rs. 85,000 and that the figure of Rs. 1,11,844.02 was entered in the return because some of the goods which were actually subject to multi -point tax had been erroneously entered in the turnover of imported single point taxable goods. It was pointed out that some of the goods were subject to multi -point tax and not to single point tax. The Additional Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) did not accept the plea of the petitioner and observed :

(3.) IT would appear, therefore, that in the view of the Additional Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) the turnover disclosed in the return must be taken for the purpose of determining the tax liability contemplated by the proviso to Section 9(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Judge (Revisions) endorsed the view that the appeal was incompetent.