Case Law Details
Sumiti Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P (Allahabad High Court)
HC find that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding of fact which needs no interference by this Court as there was difference in the stock found by the survey team on the premises of the assessee on the basis of which the assessment was made and the first appellate authority as well as Tribunal had recorded the finding to that effect and have found that the sale made by the assessee was not recorded in the account books.
The revision is concluded by finding of fact for which no interference is required by this Court.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
This revision under Section 58 of UPVAT Act 2008 has been filed assailing the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal Bench-I, Ghaziabad dated 11.01.2022 arising out of Second Appeal No. 160 of 2021 for the assessment year 2015-2016.
This revision was admitted on 10.08.2022 on the following question of law;
(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct to sustain the rejection on the account books in absence of actual weighment and quantification of stock at the time of the survey dated 09.12.2015?”
Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, has submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the order of first appellate authority which had quantified the turnover assessed by the assessing authority three times on the basis of judgment of this Court. He further submitted that in absence of actual payment and quantification of the stock the taxing authorities were not justified in imposing the tax liability and enhancing the sale and purchase.
Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, has submitted that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding to the effect that there was difference in the stock during survey and the assessing authority as well as first appellate authority had recorded the finding which the Tribunal had declined to interfere.
I have heard the respective counsel and perused the material on record.
I find that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding of fact which needs no interference by this Court as there was difference in the stock found by the survey team on the premises of the assessee on the basis of which the assessment was made and the first appellate authority as well as Tribunal had recorded the finding to that effect and have found that the sale made by the assessee was not recorded in the account books.
The revision is concluded by finding of fact for which no interference is required by this Court.
Revision fails and dismissed, accordingly.
The question of law is decided against the assessee and in favour of revenue.
