Allahabad High Court
M/S Mantora Oil Products Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. ... on 6 August, 2022
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 104 of 2008
Revisionist :- M/S Mantora Oil Products Ltd.
Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow
Counsel for Revisionist :- Praveen Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Praveen Kumar learned counsel for the revisionist-assessee and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
Present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Kanpur dated 17.10.2007 in Second Appeal No. 328 of 2001 for Assessment Year 1997-98 (U.P.). By that order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as also cross appeal filed by the revenue. Thus, the order passed by the first appeal authority has been confirmed.
The revision has been pressed on the following questions of law:-
"Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal as well as the authorities below were legally justified in accepting the stock shown in the S.I.B. survey dated 22.9.1997 even when no proper procedure was followed by the surveying authority?
Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal as well as the authorities below were legally justified in holding that on the basis of the survey dated 22.9.1997 a best judgment assessment could legally have been made by the assessing authority?"
Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, it transpires, during the Assessment Year in question, the petitioner was engaged in manufacture and sale of various types of edible oils etc. It admitted a taxable turnover Rs. 53,18,02,363.22/- and admitted tax thereon Rs. 2,38,45,670/-. During the Assessment Year in question, the petitioner was subjected to a survey proceeding by the Special Investigation Branch (in short S.I.B.) of the Trade Tax Department. In that survey, certain discrepancies were noted. That discrepancy in stock position was recorded on the strength of estimation claimed both through weighment and ocular observation of the survey party. Arising therefrom, the books of accounts of the assessee were rejected and best judgment assessment resorted to. Accordingly, vide assessment order dated 31.1.2000 the assessing authority estimated the turnover of the assessee at Rs. 55,66,58,343.22/-. Thus, addition of about 2.5 Crores was made to the turnover. It led to disputed tax liability Rs. 9,96,397/-. First appeal authority maintained the finding of rejection of books of accounts however, he granted reduction in the estimation of turnover. Accordingly, it granted relief in disputed tax to the extent Rs. 7,71,397/-. The Tribunal has maintained that determination.
While various submissions have been advanced by learned counsel for the assessee, no case is made out to offer any interference in exercise of revision jurisdiction. Though, learned counsel for the assessee may be right that the provisions of Section 100 Cr.P.C. were not shown fulfilled with respect to survey conducted by the S.I.B., yet the material discovered during the survey could be considered for the purpose of making assessment. Here, mixed findings have been recorded to infer stock discrepancy. Largely, stock discrepancy has been noticed on the strength of ocular observation,however with respect to stock discrepancy of Mahuwa oil, the authorities have recorded a finding that the same was weighed. Therefore, it is not possible to accept in entirety the submission advanced by learned counsel for the assessee that the stock discrepancy was recorded solely on the strength of ocular observation. Once stock discrepancy existed with respect to raw material used in manufacturing, the assessee exposed itself to rejection of books of accounts. That finding cannot be stated to be perverse coupled with the minimal addition made and sustained, there remains less room to offer any interference. Fact finding authorities have reached a conclusion upon consideration of material and evidence on record and sustained addition of disputed tax about 2,50,000/-. Therefore, the revision is found lacking in merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.8.2022
Faraz
