1. Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the revenue.
2. The present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Muzaffar Nagar dated 19.10.2006 passed in Second Appeal No.2 of 2003 for A.Y. 1999-2000 (UP). By that order, the Tribunal has upheld the order passed in the case of assessee's appeal under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. The present revision has been pressed on the following question of law:
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in believing that the sales were made by the applicant and not by Okhla New Delhi Unit of the applicant?"
4. Submission advanced by learned counsel for the assessee that during the assessment in question, the assessee had three units inside the State of U.P. being one at Khatauli in Muzaffar Nagar and two others at Naini in Allahabad. It also had another unit at Okhla in New Delhi. While no transaction of sale of machinery had been performed by any of its unit inside the State of U.P., the Okhla had purchased machinery equipments from various suppliers across the country and send them for job work to one M/s A.R. Gears Pvt. Ltd. at Ghaziabad. Upon the job work being completed, the Okhla unit then sold those goods as per orders received by it. In that transaction of purchase, job work and further sale, the three units of the assessee company M/s Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. situated inside the State of U.P. were not involved.
5. In the original assessment proceedings for A.Y. 1999-2000 (UP), the assessee's assessing officer did not impose any tax on sale of machinery. However, later some information was received by the assessee's assessing officer of such sale having been made. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. In its reply itself, the assessee disowned the transaction completely and specifically stated that the goods had been purchased, job work got done and goods/machineries sold thereafter by the Okhla unit of the company M/s Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd.
6. In support thereof, the assessee produced copies of the purchase invoices issued in favour of the Okhla unit as also the job work invoices drawn by M/s A.R. Gears Pvt. Ltd. upon the Okhla unit of the M/s Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd, therefore, it has been submitted that there was no escapement of turnover. While the assessing officer and the first appeal authority completely ignored the submission of the assessee and thus confirmed the demand of tax, the Tribunal has reasoned that the assessee did not produce the tax invoice, sale invoice, job work invoice and therefore, it could not establish that turnover had not escaped assessment.
7. While learned Standing Counsel would contend that it was for the assessee to establish that it had not performed sale and purchase transaction, it remains a fact that the present revision arises from re-assessment proceedings.
8. Considering the first reply submitted by the assessee, it is further clear that an objection had been raised as to the jurisdiction to re-initiate the proceedings inasmuch as the assessee specifically raised that objection that none of its unit inside the State of U.P. was involved in the disputed transaction. Further copies of the purchase invoice, job work invoice and the sale invoice were produced alongwith the reply to establish that the goods had been purchased, job work got done and thereafter the goods sold by the Okhla unit of the company M/s Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. Thus, it had been submitted that the transaction fell outside the territorial jurisdiction of the assessing authority of the assessee and in any case, the assessee had not entered into such transactions.
9. Being re-assessment proceedings, it was for the authorities to then justify the assumption of jurisdiction by specifically dealing with the objections so raised. Unless it was first shown that the bills and evidence being relied by the assessee were bogus or there existed other evidence to establish that it was the assessee at Khatauli that had performed those transactions, there would never arise any jurisdiction to re-assess the assessee for assessment year in question.
10. All authorities have failed to record the necessary finding and have misdirected themselves in that regard.
11. Accordingly, the order dated 19.10.2006 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made above. The observation made by the Tribunal that the assessee had not produced evidence, appears to be wholly wrong inasmuch as the evidence being relied upon in the present revision had been produced by the assessee and referred to in its first reply to the show cause notice issued seeking to re-assess the assessee.
12. Present revision stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Abhilash