AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Tandon J.
Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, senior advocate assisted by Sri Piyush Agrawal, advocate on behalf of the revisionist and Sri B. K. Pandey, standing counsel on behalf of the Department. This trade tax revision is directed against an order of the Trade Tax Tribunal dated February 20, 2003, passed in Second Appeal No. 86 of 2000 (assessment year 1985-86). It is not necessary for this court to enter into the various orders which were passed in respect of the aforesaid assessment year, suffice is to refer to the last order of the Tribunal dated June 4, 1997, whereunder the proceedings were remanded to the assessing authority on two grounds. (The copy of the order whereof has been filed today by means of a supplementary counter-affidavit. The correctness whereof has not been disputed by the counsel for the assessee).
From the order-on-remand dated June 4,1997, it is apparently clear that the issue with regard to the levy of tax on the sale of 78 tractors, said to have been sold by M/s. Premier Tractors Company, Mathura, qua which independent tax proceedings were initiated and under the assessment order no tax so levied was directed to be reconsidered with reference to the following two directions :
(a) The assessee should be afforded an opportunity to meet the letter dated November 9, 1985 and other attending document said to have been the basis for the Department to hold that said 78 tractors, in fact, were sold by the assessee and not by the firm at Mathura. It was further directed that the assessee should be given opportunity to cross-examine the partners of M/s. Premier Tractor as they had made a written statement that the goods, in fact, were not sold by the firm at Mathura but by the assessee himself. Bills were issued on the books of M/s. Premier Tractor Co. after the assessee had asked the said firm to transmit its book to Ghaziabad at the assessee place of business.
(b) It was directed that an opportunity be afforded to the assessee to explain the discrepancies noticed in the D. L. R.
In compliance with the order of the Tribunal, referred to above, the assessing authority issued a detailed show-cause notice to the assessee categorically reflecting upon all the documents relevant for deciding the issue as to whether the said sale of 78 tractors in fact was made by the assessee and not by M/s. Premier Tractor Co., Mathura. The assessee was also afforded an opportunity to produce the partners of the said firm, M/s. Premier Tractor Co., Mathura, for controverting the statement, which was so recorded by the Department and was noticed in the earlier order of the Tribunal. The assessing authority has reproduced the notice so issued to the assessee after remand in his order. It has been further recorded that the assessee submitted point-wise reply to the notice so issued including the reply to the letter of the firm dated September 11, 1985.
After consideration of the explanation so furnished by the revisionist it has been recorded that the assessee did not avail of the opportunity to produce the partners of the firm, M/s. Premier Tractor Co., Mathura, to controvert the statement which was recorded and was noticed in the earlier order of remand by the Tribunal. The assessing authority thereafter went into all aspect of matter including the records as were available and recorded a categorical finding that the sale of 78 tractors had been done in fact by the assessee and not by the firm at Mathura. He further held that the assessment of the firm at Mathura was wholly irrelevant in view of the findings recorded.
Not being satisfied with the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, which was also dismissed vide order dated November 20,1999 and after considering the case pleaded by the assessee and the evidence on record the first appellate authority also concurred with the finding of the assessing authority. The assessee thereafter filed second appeal, being Appeal No. 86 of 2000, which has also been dismissed.
The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal has specifically noticed that the opportunity was afforded to the assessee to produce the partners of the firm, M/s. Premier Tractor Co., Mathura, to controvert the statement recorded earlier, which he failed to avail of. It has further been recorded that from the records the authorities below have found that in fact the sale of 78 tractors was made by the assessee from Ghaziabad and not by the firm at Mathura.
The assessment order passed in respect of the sale of same tractors qua firm, M/s. Premier Tractor Co., Mathura, wherein the firm was exempted from payment of tax, has not been found to be of much relevance in view of the voluminous evidence on record, which established that the sale had been done by the assessee and not by the firm, M/s. Premier Tractor Co., Mathura. Cogent reasons have been recorded after appreciating the evidence in respect of the discrepancies noticed in the D. L. R.
It is clarified that the statement made in paragraph 23 of this revision-petition is factually incorrect, inasmuch as in the notice after remand a specific reference was made by the assessing authority to the letter dated May 11, 1985 to which reply was also submitted by the assessee and which had been considered.
Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the records, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of fact recorded by the tax authorities including the Tribunal in the facts of the case cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence.
No substantial question of law arises in the present revision. It is dismissed accordingly.