Court No. - 83
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 167 of 2010 Revisionist :- M/S Venus Enterprises Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Commercial Taxes Up Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- Piyush Agrawal,Krishna Agarawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Jagdish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.
By means of this revision, the revisionist has challenged the imposition of tax of sum of Rs. 47,500/ by the Commercial Tax Tribunal by means of its order dated 6.11.2009 passed in Appeal No. 272 of 2009 pertaining to the assessment year 1999-2000.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that imposition of the aforesaid amount of tax could not have been done by the Commercial Tax Tribunal by drawing adverse inference against the revisionist where debit and credit entries were found and, therefore, it could not be assumed that there was suppression of sale or purchase and in rejecting the books of account. It is, therefore, contended that the question of law be framed.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has drawn attention of this Court to the assessment order dated 9.11.2001 that has been filed as Annexure-2 to the revision as well as order dated 20.2.2003 passed in Appeal No. 24 of 2002, under Section 41(8) of the Trade Tax Act. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that no proper books of accounts were found in the premises of the revisionist which admittedly was engaged in manufacture of electric bulbs. On the basis of seized documents, an amount of Rs. 2,19,867/ was imposed as tax which was upheld by the appellate authority. It is further contended that the Commercial Tax Tribunal by its order dated 6.11.2009 has reduced the amount of tax to Rs. 47,500/ and the order is based on factual assessment of all the records. The benefit has been granted to the revisionist by reducing the amount assessed by the assessing authority. It is contended that no question of law, therefore, arises in the present case meriting admission of the revision.
On perusal of the record of the case and after considering the judgement and order dated 6.11.2009, it is noticed that though the assessing authority had assessed the tax of Rs. 2,19,867/ on the revisionist's firm, however, the Commercial Tax Tribunal had reduced the amount to Rs. 47,500/. The order of the Tribunal is based on consideration of all the material facts and no question of law arises to be framed under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In view of the above, this revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.10.2021 sfa/ (Jayant Banerji, J)