JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J.
1. These two revisions under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated June 5, 2004 relating to the assessment year 1991-92 both under the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. The applicant was carrying on the business of foodgrains, oil seed, etc. On the basis of the information received from Mandi Samiti that the applicant was issued 90 gate passes, proceeding under Section 21 of the Act was initiated against the applicant. During the course of assessment proceedings, 59 gate passes were got verified but 31 gate passes could not be verified. The applicant was asked to produce satti bahi and stock register, issued by the Mandi Samiti but the same could not be produced and in its place the stock register and satti bahi as required by the SMI department were produced. The assessing authority treated the information relating to the 31 gate passes as suppressed transactions and accordingly, estimated the turnover both under the U. P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. The applicant filed two appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Bareilly. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated October 9, 1998 dismissed both the appeals. The applicant filed two appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed both the appeals.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
4. The applicant has filed supplementary affidavit stating therein that the applicant was not required to maintain stock register and satti bahi for the issuance of gate pass by the Mandi Samiti and was only required by SMI department to maintain stock register and satti bahi which were produced before the assessing authority. It is further submitted that the Revenue authority did not summon 31 gate passes alleged to have been issued under the signature of the applicant. In the counter-affidavit filed by the assessing authority, the aforesaid averments have not been specifically denied. He submitted that under Section 21 of the Act burden lies upon the Revenue to prove that such transactions relates to the applicant. While in the present case, Revenue fails to discharge its burden, learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.
5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.
6. It is settled principle of law that under Section 21 of the Act burden lies upon the Revenue to prove its case. In the present case, it is the case of the assessing authority that the information had been received from Mandi Samiti relating to the alleged transactions of 31 gate passes alleged to have been issued to the applicant. Then in case of denial by the applicant, burden lies upon the Revenue authority to prove the authenticity of the information, which could be done by confronting the documents relating to the Mandi Samiti, which had not been done. It is also not clear whether under the Mandi Adhiniyam, the applicant was required to maintain satti bahi and stock register. If it was required, then it is also to be seen whether while issuing gate pass the entry of such gate pass was required to be made in the satti bahi or in the stock register. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by any of the authorities. In the circumstances, in my view, matter requires further enquiry by the assessing authority. The assessing authority is directed to confront the documents relating to the Mandi Samiti, which are the basis for the information relating to 31 gate passes and to prove that such gate passes relate to the applicant. The assessing authority may also enquire whether under the Mandi Adhiniyam or by any provisions Mandi Samiti required the applicant to maintain stock register and satti bahi and whether any entry of the gate pass was required to be made in such registers. On the enquiry being made on the aforesaid aspect the assessing authority may pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant.
7. In the result, both the revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal and the authorities below are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to pass fresh assessment orders in the light of the observations made above. Applicant may also file the certified copy of the order before the assessing authority within fifteen days from today and the assessing authority is directed to pass assessment order expeditiously after making necessary enquiry.