Allahabad High Court
M/S. Pooja Glass Works Private ... vs Commissioner Trade/Commercial ... on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 2158 of 2008
Revisionist :- M/S. Pooja Glass Works Private Limited Firozabad
Opposite Party :- Commissioner Trade/Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow
Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
and
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 2085 of 2008
Revisionist :- M/S. Pooja Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Firozabad
Opposite Party :- Commissioner Trade/Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow
Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
2. The present set of revisions have been filed by the assessee against the common order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Agra dated 26.03.2008 passed in Second Appeal Nos.137 of 2007 for A.Y. 2003-04 (UP) and 138 of 2007 for A.Y. 2003-04 (Central) filed by the assessee and Second Appeal Nos. 221 of 2007 for A.Y. 2003-04 (UP) and 222 of 2007 for A.Y. (Central) filed by the revenue. By those orders, all four appeals have been dismissed.
3. In short, the books of account of the assessee had been rejected on account of discrepancy noted in the single survey conducted on 27.06.2003 at the business premises of the assessee. According to the revenue, the stock register did not reflect the correct stock position inasmuch as there was shortfall of stock of 5578 dozen of glasswares. The same was explained by the assessee by contending that it was the practice on its part to maintain the stock books at 12 noon. Since the furnace of the assessee was running in three shifts a day, the manufacturing activity for the last one day i.e. after 12 noon on 26.06.2003 upto 27.06.2003 had not been recorded. Had that figure been taken into consideration there would be no shortfall. The first appeal authority has upheld the rejection of books of account of the assessee and granted benefit of 50% of the unaccounted stock and confined the addition in proportion to 2800 dozen of glassware per day.
4. Insofar as it has been contended that there was no stock discrepancy in view of the fact that stock register was maintained from 12 noon to 12 noon everyday, there is no evidence to establish such practice having been adopted by the assessee. In any case, there is no evidence to establish that the survey conducted on 27.06.2003 had in fact been conducted before 12 noon on that day.
5. In view of the above, it is rather late in the day to enter into this exercise to try and determine whether the assessee was in the practice of maintaining its stock book at 12 noon everyday and in any case, whether the survey was conducted before 12 noon on 27.06.2003. In that regard, learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that in the survey report itself it is not clear (survey report that is available to him) whether survey was conducted before noon or afterwards.
6. In view of the above, it is clear from the finding of the Tribunal that the entire stock position was not explained and there was excess stock found at the time of survey which finding is based on material and evidence. That finding is neither perverse nor inherently unreasoned. Accordingly, the same is sustained.
7. As to estimation, it appears that the appeal authorities have granted fair benefit upto the extent of 50%. Since that finding is also based on material and reason and are wholly in accordance with law, no interference is warranted.
8. The present set of revisions stands dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Abhilash
