Abhishek Traders Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

1. Heard learned counsel for the Revisionist, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the record.

2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Agra in Second Appeal No.73 of 2024. The aforesaid revision has been admitted by this Court on 08.02.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is engaged in the business of Civil Work Contract for Government and Semi-Government. The business premises of the revisionist was surveyed on 22^..2016, in which certain documents were seized in six exhibits. Out of those exhibits, the Ext. No.1,2 and 3 have been treated to be against the revisionist. On the said premise a notice was issued, which was duly replied but not being satisfied, Assessing Authority passed best judgment assessment on 30^th March, 2024, against the said order first appeal was filed, but was dismissed, against the dismissal of first appeal, second appeal has been filed which was partly allowed by the impugned order. He further submits that exhibits which were found at the time of survey does belong to the business of the revisionist. The accountant namely Pramod Kumar, who had done this mischief, as all exhibits belong to him and not related to the business of revisionist. In this regard FIR was lodged at the police station. Therefore, entries mentioned therein cannot be used against the revisionist.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that revisionist have brought on record various material/certificate certifying that no transactions were being undertaken by the persons whose names were found place in Ext. 1 and 2, but without rebutting to the same, the impugned order of the tribunal have been passed, not allowing the appeal in toto.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that once the revisionist discharged its burden, bringing on record the certificate of the persons rebutting that no transaction took place between the revisionist and the parties, whose names were mentioned. Therefore, the best judgment assessment made is bad, and is liable to be set-aside to that extent. He further submits that once a rebuttal has been filed, denying the two exhibits belonging to the revisionist, it was the duty of the respondent to rebut the same by cogent material bringing on record, the suppress purchase and sale were being made by the revisionist.

6. In support of his submission, he relies upon a judgment and order of this Court in the case of M/s B. S. Enterprises Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.94 of 2020.

7. Per contra, learned ACSC support the impugned order and submits that the business premises of the revisionist was surveyed, in which six exhibits were found, three of them were treated to be related to the business of his brother, but exhibits No.1,2 and 3 were relates to the business of the revisionist. Out of said three exhibits, Ext. No.3 was accepted by the revisionist which belongs to his business. He further submits that the two exhibits No.1 and 2 that mere filing an FIR against this accountant will not observe the revisionist. Further, the certificate have been filed at a belated stage before the tribunal, therefore, the additional evidences have rightly been not accepted by the tribunal, as the revisionist ought to have brought material in support of the reply to the notice at a very first stage.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party further submits that neither in the grounds of appeal, nor before this Court, any averments have been made, that material evidence were available before the authorities below, but the same have not been considered, merely the material being filed alongwith the revision for the first time, as fresh evidence cannot be accepted before this Court. He submits that from Ext. No.1 and 2 found an entries mentioned therein clearly shows a suppress purchase and sale made by the revisionist. Once this fact have been brought on record about a suppress purchase and sale then the assessing authority is competent and authorized under the act for making best judgment assessment after rejecting the book of accounts of the revisionist. Once a best judgment assessment have been made, the tribunal has only enhanced the turnover which commensurate the suppression of purchases and sale found mentioned in Ext. No.1 and 2, he prays for dismissal of the revision.

9. After hearing the parties, the court has perused the record.

10. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the survey on 22^ndSeptember, 2016, certain documents were seized, out of which three documents were treated against the revisionist. On the basis of which the best judgment assessment have been made, which travel up to the tribunal. The tribunal being the last court of fact and law after due consideration have partly allowed the appeal filed by the revisionist and have granted substantial relief which commensurate to the seizure of documents found at the time of survey. The judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of M/s B.S. Enterprises (supra) also justified the enhancement of turnover to the extent of 10%.

11. Since, the best judgment assessment has been made and a substantial relief has been granted by the tribunal being the last court of fact and law. No cases made out for any interference in the order.

12. Accordingly, the Revision is dismissed.