Court No. - 59
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 943 of 2009 Revisionist :- M/S. Vardhman Trading Company Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- Suyash Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. The present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Meerut dated 26.03.2009 passed in Second Appeal No. 390 of 2003 for A.Y. 1999-2000 (UP). By that order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the assessment order whereby an addition had been made on account of freight charges being added.
2. In short, during the assessment year in question, the assessee was engaged in wholesale trade in coal. While its head office was in Meerut, it had also opened a branch at Banaras and Muzaffar Nagar. Though the quantity of import of coal disclosed by the assessee was not disturbed in the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer formed a view that the sales performed by the assessee to various persons in western U.P. had been performed from its head office Meerut Muzaffar Nagar and not from its branch at Banaras as claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, addition of freight charges of coal from Banaras to Meerut and Muzaffar Nagar was added. That has been sustained by the Tribunal.
3. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
4. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the assessee that there is no material to make addition to the freight charges, though attractive cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. Here, undisputedly, the assessee had initially obtained registration disclosing it, head office at Meerut. Thereafter, though the opening of branches at Banaras and Muzaffar Nagar cannot be doubted, however, it remains a fact that during the survey dated 23.09.1999 conducted at the Banaras branch of the assessee it was revealed that no transaction of sale or purchase of coal was carried out there from. The assessee did not bring on record any proof in the shape of invoice to establish that it had actually sold the goods at Banaras.
5. Consequently, it emerges that two views were possible. Since estimation had been made by the Tribunal with respect to the fact allegation made against the assessee is consistent with the findings of the survey and since there is no material brought on record by the assessee to doubt the correctness of the same or to establish that the coal in question had been sold from Banaras, no interference may be made in such an order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of the revision jurisdiction.
6. The present revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Abhilash