NARESH KUMAR JALAN Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHANDNEY CHAWK CHARGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the application filed under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, the petitioner has assailed the revisional order dated June 13, 2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, the appellate order dated September 25, 2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Dharmatala Circle and the assessment order dated June 28, 2006 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Chandni Chowk Charge for the period from June 2, 2003 to March 31, 2004.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Sri Naresh Kumar Man was carrying on business under the trade name of M/s. Unifix at 155, Lenin Sarani, Nizam Centre, Kolkata 700013 as a proprietary concern. The petitioner was a reseller of paint, varnish and adhesive which are goods falling under the Fourth Schedule to the Act. The registration certificate of the petitioner was cancelled in the year 2007. The assessment of the period from June 2, 2003 to March 31, 2004 was completed on June 28, 2004 by the Commercial Tax Officer, Chandni Chowk Charge (in short "CTO, CK") after examination of books of account. The additional demand raised in the said assessment order was Rs. 4,259. The petitioner filed appeal against the said assessment order. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dharmatala Circle (in short "ACCT, DH") passed ex parte appellate order on September 25, 2006 and enhanced additional tax from Rs. 4,259 to Rs. 6,10,937 by enhancing gross sales from Rs. 6,70,709.86 to Rs. 58,32,577.48. On revision, the revisional authority confirmed the appellate order. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed this revision application before this Tribunal.

(3.) MR . Arya Das, advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the assessing officer arbitrarily disallowed a part of the indirect income and enhanced gross sales to Rs. 7,00,000 against the admitted sales figure of Rs. 6,70,709.86. It is further alleged that on appeal without issuing any show -cause notice the appellate authority enhanced gross sales and disallowed the claims for non -taxable sales and sales in the course of inter -State trade which were allowed by the assessing officer at the time of assessment. The learned advocate has drawn our attention to Rule 251 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. The learned advocate has claimed that the appellate authority did not consider the purchase return and sales return of goods while calculating the gross sales. Mr. Das has further claimed that in spite of production of all documents before the revisional authority, the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes confirmed the appellate order for want of sufficient documents. The learned advocate has prayed for setting aside the assessment, appeal and revisional orders passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively.