M/S Rajawat Traders vs The Commissioner, Commercial ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 959 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved
 

 

 

 
Commercial Tax Revision No. 1119 of 2009
 
M/s Rajawat Traders, Cement Vyapari, Mauranipur, District Jhansi................Applicant.
 
Vs.
 
The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P. Lucknow...............................Opp. Party
 

 
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is against the order of the Tribunal dated 23.7.2009 relating to the assessment year 1998-99.

The applicant claimed that it was carrying on the business of cement and for which it had maintained the books of account. According to the books of account, the applicant had disclosed the turnover of cement at Rs.10,00,965/- and claimed exemption on the said turnover being related to the U.P. purchased cement. The assessing authority has rejected the books of account and estimated the taxable turnover of steel boxes, almirahs, etc. Rs. 10 lacs on the basis of survey dated 29.6.1998.

The applicant filed an appeal against the said order before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Jhansi. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Jhansi allowed the appeal and declared the applicant non-taxable.

Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal of the Commissioner of Trade Tax, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the order of the assessing authority.

Heard Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had carried on the business of cement only in the year under consideration. It was assessed in the previous years as well as to the subsequent year for cement only. At the time of survey dated 29.6.1998, made by the S.T.O. (SIB), his father was only present. The proprietor of the business, Sri Awanish Kumar Singh, was not present. The applicant had taken only one shop of 10 X 18 feet from Sri Moti Lal Kushwaha. Iron doors, racks, boxes, etc. mentioned in the survey report did not belong to the applicant and were of the neighbours, who were carrying on the business of such goods. On the instruction of the first appellate authority, a survey was made at the business premises of the applicant on 8.7.2001 wherein it was reported that size of the shop was 10 X 18 feet and 240 bags cement were found in the stock. No other material was found. This establishes that the applicant had carried on the business of cement only in the year under consideration also.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that it is admitted that the survey dated 29.6.1998 was made at the shop of the applicant. It is also admitted that at the time of survey, father of the proprietor, Sri Kripal Singh, was present. Though as per the survey report, Sri Awanish Kumar Singh was also present and refused to sign the survey report but two facts are not disputed that the survey was made at the business premises of the applicant and his father Sri Kripal Singh was present. The survey report reveals that 192 iron doors were found in two rooms and in one room 24 iron doors were found over which the name of M/s Rajawat Traders was mentioned. In front of the rooms, 12 iron boxes and 11 small racks were found. The explanation dated 10.3.2000 filed in reply to the show cause notice. It has only been stated that the goods, which were found lying outside the shop, belonged to neighbours' shops and the applicant has no concern to those goods. No explanation has been offered in respect of the goods found in side the shop. The name of persons, to whom the goods lying out side the shops belonged have not been disclosed. Therefore, the affidavits of Sri Moti Lal Kushwaha, the landlord, and the other explanation in the affidavit filed before the first appellate authority cannot be relied upon. He submitted that the survey dated 8.7.2001 is after three years and the facts mentioned in the said survey are not relevant for the year under consideration and, therefore, no reliance can be placed. The first appellate authority has illegally on the basis of the subsequent survey dated 8.7.2001 has concluded that the goods found at the time of survey dated 29.6.1998 did not belong to the applicant. The Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record has rightly held that the goods, namely, iron doors, etc. found at the time of survey dated 29.6.1998 belonged to the applicant.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned orders.

To adjudicate the issue, it would be appropriate to refer the contents of the surveys dated 29.6.1998 and 8.7.2001.

 

 
Survey dated 29.6.1998
 

 
	                  042524 losZ{k.k Mk;jh 
 
dze la[;k                losZ{k.k frfFk           eq[; lwph la[;k 
 
uke o irk      es0 jktkor VzsMlZ lhesUV C;kikjh LVs'ku jksM 
 
			emjkuhiqj >kWlh A
 

 
lTtu dk uke 
 
 o in         Jh vouh'k flag iq= Jh d`iky flag fu0 ubZ 
 
		    cLrh emjkuhiqj A
 
oknh oLrq dk uke    lhesUV 
 

 
ckgj ls eaxk;s tkus 
 
okyh oLrq,a            fuy 
 
{ks=                  izkUr ds vUnj 
 
fdrkc ftl ij        i`"B la[;[email protected]@[email protected] ij 
 
 fd, x, 					   gLrk{kj fd, x;s 
 

1- crk;k fd nqdku esa 240 cksjh ts0ih0 ekLVj fcYMj LVkd esa gS vkSj nqdku dh uke 10x18 QhV gSA ;g nqdku Jh eksrhyky dq'kokgk dh gS ftls fdjk;s ij fy;k x;k gSa ftls fdjk;s ij fy;k x;k gSA nqdku ds nkfgsus Jh fodze flag dh gS tks fcfYMax eSVsjh;y fdjk;s ij nsrs gSA rFkk Qsczhds';ku ds lkeku csprs gSA ck;h rjQ jktw dq'kokgk dh nqdku gS tks Qsczhds'ku vkSj QuhZpj dk dke djrs gSa A nqdku ds ihNs Jh eksrh dq'kokgk dk fuekZ.k gSA crk;k x;k fd u gh Qsczhds'ku dk dk;e fd;k tkrk gS vkSj u gh vU; dksbZ leku cspk tkrk gSA u gh fctyh dusD'ku gSA crk;k x;k fd nqdku dk jftLVzs'ku 94&95 dk gSA jftLVzs'ku ua0 ts0,p0 0116185 fn0 01-07-94 gSA Jh fodze mifLFkr O;fDr us crk;k fd jktkor VszMlZ ds nkfgus rjQ dh nqdku mudh gS tks uRFkw dq'kokyk dh gS vkSj fdjk;s ij yh x;h gSA jktkor VzsMlZ ds ck;h fLFkr nqdku Jh jktw dq'kokgk dh gS ihNs fLFkr xksnke Hkh Jh dq'kokgk dk gS muds }kjk Qsczhds'ku dk dk;Z fd;k tkrk gSA crk;k fd muds }kjk Vzd] VSDVj rFkk fcfYMax eSVsfj;r dk lkeku fdjk;s ij fn;k tkrk gSa A nqdku ds vUnj ,d ek= r[r o pkj dqflZ;kW j[kh gqbZ A ,d vU; mifLFr O;fDr Jh ?ku';ke flag iq= Jh uRFkw dq'kokgk us crk;k fd jktkor VzsMlZ dh flQZ ;gh nqdku gS buds }kjk flQZ lhesUV dk dk;Z fd;k tkrk gSA jktkor VzsMlZ ds ck;h rjQ fLFkr xyh ds cxy esa Jh jktw dq'kokgk dh nqdku gS A nqdku ds ihNs mudh tehu rFkk lkeku gS crk;k fd lM+d ls yxh gq;h nqdkusa esjs ifjokj dh gS ftls fdjk;s ij fn;k x;k gSA

gLrk{kj vf/kdkjh

g0 vLi"V g0 vLi"V g0 vLi"V

fn0 08-07-01 fn0 08-07-01 fn0 08-07-01

fodze flag vouh'k flag ?ku';ke

gLrk{kj vf/kdkjh

¼ds0ih0flag½

C;kikj dj vf/kdkjh

[k.M&1] >kWlh

Survey dated 8.7.2001

eSllZ jktkor VzsMlZ LVs'ku jksM emjkuhiqjA

Jh vouh'k dqekj flag rFkk muds firk Jh d`iky flag

yksgs ds njokts pgj ds cDls jSDl rFkk vkyekfj;kW fuekZ.k ,oa fodzhA

tkWap ij ik;k x;k fd emjkuhiqj ds LVs'ku jksM ij ftl nqdku dh nhoky ds mij loZJh jktkor VzsMlZ dk uke fy[kk gS mlesa lhesUV ugh j[kh gSA yksgs ds njokts j[ks gSA cxy ds nksuksa dejksa esa Hkh ,sls gh -----------------njokts j[ks gSA rhljs d{k ds lkeus xnh ij cSBs -------------------ds vuqlkj rhuksa dejksa esa ,d gh QeZ dk lkeku gSA dejksa ds ckgj Hkh NksVs NksVS jSd rFkk LVhy ds cMs ckDlst ¼lUnwdsa½ Hkh j[ks gSA ihNs dh vksj fuekZ.k dk;Z gks jgk gS tgkWa ij dqy 2 yksx fuekZ.k dk;Z dj jgs gS ogkWa ij rhu cMh rFkk ,d NksVh vkyekfj;ksa esa -----------------------ij rhljs d{k ds lkeus cSBs O;fDr;ksa esa ls ,d cqtqxZ O;fDr us viuk uke d`iky flag crk;k A nwljs O;fDr tks ;qok gS us vius dks Jh d`iky flag dk iq= rFkk viuk uke Jh vouh'k dqekj flag crk;k A budk dguk gS fd jktkor VzsMlZ cUn djds nwljs uke ls QeZ 'kq: dh x;h gSA jktkor VzsMlZ----------- cUn fd;s rFkk nwljh QeZ dk uke D;k gS rFkk dc ls'kq: dh gS esa ckrsa iwNus ij bu yksxksa us crk;k fd vius odhy lkgc ls iwNdj uke vkfn crk;saxs ------------ dksbZ fglkc fdrkc ugh gSA [kjhn esa dksbZ ijps ;k fcdzh dk dksbZ okmpj Hkh ugh gSA rhljs rFkk nwljs dejs esa dqy feykdj 192 yksgs ds njokts gSA igys dejs ftlds mij QeZ dk uke jktkor VzsMlZ fy[kk gS esa dqy 24 yksgs ds njoktsa j[ks gSA dejksa ds ckgj lHkh-----------esa ckDlst dh dqy la[;k 12 gSA NksVs NksVs jSd11 gSa A Jh d`iky flag ,oa vouh'k dqekj falg us gLrk{kj djus ls bUdkj fd;k A

29-6-98

g0 viBuh;

The reply to the show cause notice, which is Annexure-2 to the revision, is also reproduced herein below.

lsok esa]

Jheku O;kikj dj vf/kdkjh

[k.M ua0 3] >kWlh

izkFkhZ% es0 jktkor VzsMlZ LVs'ku jksM emjkuhiqj

o"kZ 98&99

fo"k;%& fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k dkj.k crkvks uksfVl la0 4562 fn0 03&03&2000 ds lEcU?k esa A

egksn;]

fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ QeZ dks Jheku th }kjk fn;k x;k dkj.k crkvksa ds vuqikyu esa izkFkhZ dk fuEu fcUnqokj fuosnu gSA

1& ;g fd losZ{k.k fnukWd 29&6&98 dk nqdku [kqyh Fkh rFkk nqdku ij lhesUV ugh FkkA nqdku ij QeZ Lokeh ds firk th cSSBs FksA rFkk losZ{k.k vf/kdkfj;ksa us tks eky nqdku ds ckgj ik;k og eky iMkslh nqdkunkjksa dk FkkA ml eky ls izkFkhZ QeZ dks dksbZ okLrk ugh FkkA Jheku th los{k.k vf/kdkjh dks iw.kZ vf/kdkj Fkk ml eky dks lhy dj ldrs Fks vkSj tks fuekZ.k gks jgk Fkk og lc iMkslh nqdkunkj dk gks jgk FkkA ftlds lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ 'kiFki= Hkh nkf[ky dj jgk gSA

2& losZ{k.k ds le; fuekZ.k ds LFkku ij j[ks lkeku dk izkFkhZ QeZ ls dksbZ okLrk ugh FkkA ;fn Jheku losZ{k.k vf/kdkjh pkgrs rks lht dj ldrs FksA tks fd mUgksus ,slk D;ksa ugh fd;k A

3& ;g fd losZ{k.k ds le; mifLFkr O;fDr Jh vouh'k dqekj flag us dksbZ c;ku ugha fn;k A okLrfodrk esa losZ{k.k ds le; vouh'k dqekj flag ogkWa ekSTwn ugh FksA ;fn c;ku fn;s Fks rks losZ fjiksVZ ij vouh'k dqekj flag ds gLrk{kj t:j gksus pkfg,A ftlls ;g fl) gksrk fd losZ{k.k vf/kdkfj;ksa us mDr dj fu/kkZj.k dk;kZy; ls O;kikjh dh xksiuh; i=koyh eaxkus dh d`ik djsaA ftlls Li"V gks lds fd losZ{k.k fjiksVZ lgh gS ;k feF;k gSA

4& losZ{k.k ds le; fglkc fdrkc equhe ds ikl j[ks FksA ;fn QeZ Lokeh losZ ds le; mifLFkr gksrk rks ykdj fn[kyk fn;s tkrs A

5& ;g fd izkFkhZ QeZ }kjk dsoy lhesUV ds fy;s gh iath;u izkIr gS vkSj dsoy lhesUV dk gh O;kikj djrk gSA pwWfd xYyk ea.Mh ikl esa gksus ds dkj.k gekjh nqdku ds vkl ikl Qsczhds'ku okyksa dh nqdkus T;knk gSA ftlls muds }kjk rS;kj eky ckgj lMd fdukjs yxk fn;k tkrk gSA ftls losZ{k.k vf/kdkjh izkFkhZ QeZ dk eky le> cSBs ,oa losZ{k.k vf/kdkjh us iw.kZr% iM+kslh nqdku dk gh losZ fd;k gS losZ vf/kdkjh nqdku ij vk;s gksaxs o nqdku ij lhesUV ikrs gh iM+kslh nqdkunkjksa dk losZ{k.k dj x;s A ftlls izkFkhZ QeZ dks dksbZ ljksdkj ugh FkkA blds lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ ,d 'kiFki= bl tokc ds lkFk layXu dj jgk gSA

fn0 10&03&2000 g0 vLi"V

es0 jktkor VzsMlZ

emjkuhiqj A

In reply to the show cause notice, it is not disputed that survey dated 29.6.1998 was made at the business premises of the applicant. It is admitted that at the time of survey, Sri Kripal Singh, father of the proprietor, was present. Though in the survey report, it is mentioned that Sri Ashwani Kumar, proprietor, was present and he refused to sign, may be disputed, but the fact remains that survey was conducted in the presence of father of the proprietor Sri Kripal Singh. The survey report reveals that 192 iron doors were found in two rooms and in one room 24 iron doors were found over which the name of M/s Rajawat Traders was mentioned. In front of the rooms, 12 iron boxes and 11 small racks were found. On the back sides manufacturing was going on wherein three big and one small almirahs were found. One cutting machine and welding instruments were found. No protest was made about the facts mentioned in the report by the persons present there. Even after the survey no objection was filed, immediately thereafter disputing the facts mentioned in the survey report. Therefore, any explanation offered subsequently during the course of the assessment proceeding has rightly not been accepted. The survey dated 8.7.2001 was made after three years. On the basis of the facts mentioned in the said survey report, the facts mentioned in survey report dated 29.6.1998 cannot be said to be incorrect or false. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.

In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed.

Dated: 8th April, 2011

OP