S/S U.P. Tobacco PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner Commercial Tax

Court No. - 1 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 534 of 2015 Revisionist :- S/S U.P. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- Mr. B.K. Pandey, Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mr. A.C. Tripathi, Standing Counsel Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 28.11.2015 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 303 of 2014 (A.Y. 2012-13) in which the following questions of law have been framed:- "A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in rejecting the appeal filed by the applicant inasmuch as confirming the evaded taxable turnover of the applicant at Rs. 2, 96, 50,000/- and in estimating the amount of tax of Rs. 32,62,000/-? B. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below were justified in estimating the evaded turnover at Rs. 2, 96, 50,000/- inasmuch as for 7 months the evaded turnover estimated by the Ist Appellate authority is Rs. 8 Lakh? C. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal as well as the authorities below were justified in not granting the benefit of Input Tax Credit as provided U/s 13 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act in view of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in TTR No. 747/2014 in the case of Lucknow?" Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the applicant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Bidi. On 19.10.2012 a survey was conducted on the business premises of the applicant and its branch. At the time of said survey, the stock was noted by estimation and no actual stock was noted. He further submits that even the survey report was given to the revisionist after two days. This fact has not been disputed by any of the authority. As soon as the survey report was given to the revisionist, the objection was filed by raising specific issue that stock was noted by estimation. He further submits that detailed reply was submitted before the authorities and in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, the revisionist has also taken the said plea but the Tribunal has neither considered the contention of the revisionist nor deal the said issue. He prays for remanding the present revision. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that at the time of survey, the stock was noted in the presence of one person of the company which has been considered by the first appellate authority and subsequently relief has not been given. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the contention of the dealer. He prays for dismissing the revision.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. Admittedly, the revisionist is manufacturing and selling Bidi. At the time of survey dated 19.10.2012, certain stock was found as per the account books. It was contended on behalf of the revisionist that the survey report was not given to him and later on after receiving the survey report, objection was filed on 5.11.2012. This fact has not been disputed by the authorities. The record further reveals that even in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal in ground no. 4 various details were mentioned. A copy of grounds of appeal before the Tribunal is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to this revision (page nos. 64 to 76), by which the revisionist tried to explain as there was no difference in actual stock as well as the stock in account books, the Tribunal being the last court of fact though passed the judgement in detail but has failed to consider the contention of the revisionist while passing the impugned order. The Tribunal being the last Court of fact ought to have discuss in detail about the discrepancy alleged by the revenue. In the case in hand, the Tribunal has not discussed the issue raised by the revisionist that the stock was noted by estimation. In view of above, the revision is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the issue afresh. It is expected that since the matter is very old, the Tribunal may take all possible effort to decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The revisionist undertakes to serve the copy of this order within a fortnight. In the event of failure on the part of the revisionist, benefit of this order shall not be accorded to the revisionist. The question of law is answered accordingly. Order Date :- 7.4.2022 Rahul Dwivedi/- Allahabad