Court No. - 7
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 129 of 2018 Applicant :- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Up Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. AND Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 131 of 2018 Applicant :- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax,Up Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist-assessee and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned standing counsel for the respondent.
The above noted two revisions have been filed under Section 58 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 to challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 24.04.2018 in Second Appeal No.29267 of 2018, Year 2014-15 (Provincial) and Second Appeal No.269 of 2018, Year 2014-15 (Entry Tax).
Briefly stated facts of the present case are that for the Assessment Year 2014-15, the Assessing Authority passed an assessment order creating demand of Rs.48,98,10,083/- towards the tax under U.P. VAT Act and Rs.72,20,000/- towards entry tax. The revisionist-assessee preferred separate appeals before the First Appellate Authority along with stay application. The First Appellate Authority granted stay of 50% of the aforesaid disputed demand. Aggrieved with the order of the First Appellate Authority, the Revisionist preferred the aforenoted second appeals before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-II, Ghaziabad, which have been disposed of by the impugned order dated 24.04.2018 staying the disputed demand to the tune of 75%. Aggrieved with the aforesaid common order, the Revisionist-Assessee has filed the present Revisions.
Learned counsel for the Revisionist-Assessee, submits that water consumption has been made the basis for enhancement of turnover which was not solely used in the manufacture of aerated water, juices and packaged drinking water rather a substantial quantity thereof was used in non-manufacturing activity such as cleaning etc. He, therefore, submits that the determination of evaded turnover exclusively on the basis of alleged consumption of water in the manufacture of final product, is not based on any material on record. Since, the determination of evaded turnover by the Assessing Authority is totally groundless, therefore, the entire demand is liable to be stayed. The Assessee is in financial crisis and, therefore, it cannot deposit 25% of the disputed demand.
Learned standing counsel supports the impugned order of the Tribunal and the assessment order.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties.
Perusal of the assessment order shows that sufficient reasons have been given by the Assessing Authority by recording findings on Point Nos.1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 16, 18 and 19 for rejection of books of accounts and enhancement of turnover. The finding on point No.19 cannot be looked in an isolated manner but has to be seen along with adverse materials found and the findings recorded on other points including point Nos.1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 16 and 18.
Since in the present revisions only stay of demand pending the appeals is in issue, therefore, I do not propose to enter into merits of the demand created under the assessment order.
Considering the findings of the Assessing Authority mainly on point Nos.1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 16, 18 and 19, I am of the view that the demands created under the assessment order in question are not groundless. Various adverse materials have been considered by the Assessing Authority while arriving at the findings on the aforesaid points to arrive at the conclusion that the books of accounts of the Revisionist-Assessee deserves rejection and the turnover deserves to be enhanced.
The Revisionist-Assessee has completely failed to place any material on record in these two revisions so as to indicate prima facie the financial hardship. The sale turnover of the Assessee is more than one thousand crores. No material has been brought on record to indicate financial hardship. Even copy of balance sheet has not been filed. Neither prima facie case nor financial hardship has been made out by the Revisionist- Assessee to require this Court to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any error of law in the impugned order of the Tribunal. No question of law arises from the order of Tribunal. Both the revisions lack merit and, therefore, deserve to be dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid, both the Revisions are dismissed.
It is, however, observed that the First Appellate Authority shall make every effort to decide the pending appeals of the Assessee relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15 in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment and without being influenced by any of the observations made in the body of this order.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 NLY