Gujrat Timber Stores vs Commissioner of Trade Tax

Bharati Sapru, J.—This revision has been filed by the Assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal dated 8.8.2003 for the assessment year 1994-95 by which the Tribunal has made a best judgment assessment on the basis of one transaction made by the Assessee on 173 pieces of timber without entering them into the books.

The Assessee is a registered dealer who received an order to supply 300 pieces of timber on 22.11.1994 to another registered dealer, namely, Triveni Sheet Glass Works Limited, Kanpur Road, Allahabad. The Assessee arranged to send 173 pieces of timber which were apprehended on 24.11.1994 and at the time of apprehension the goods were not accompanied by appropriate papers rather the challan has been drawn on a separate letter head. The explanation of the Assessee is that since proper order was not being made on that date but subsequently when full supply of 300 pieces of timber was made a bill No. 213, dated 26.11.1994 was drawn by the applicant in favour of the purchaser.

On the basis of the seizure made on the goods on 24.11.1994 penalty proceedings were initiated against the Assessee and were finalised against it.

At the time of making an assessment also for the year in question the authorities came to the conclusion that the goods were being supplied without proper papers. Learned Counsel has argued that the value of the goods which were apprehended on 24.11.1994 was approximately Rs. 18,600/- and thereafter on that basis the estimate could not have been exaggerated to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- as has been done by the authorities. He has also stated that the quantum so fixed is exorbitant and not justified. His argument is that a proper explanation has been given by the Assessee about the goods apprehended on 24.11.1994 and his books of account could not have been rejected because he has made sales to a registered dealer and also produced the evidence in that behalf before the authorities concerned. His argument is that the authority concerned has ignored the evidence and had made an excessive estimate in the turnover of the Assessee. He has further argued that he has not sold any timber product in the year in question.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Assessee and learned standing Counsel for the State.

One fact which is not in dispute is that the Assessee is a registered dealer and the purchaser was also a registered dealer in the same local area. The facts relating to the goods apprehended on 24.11.1994 could very easily be verified and ascertained by the authority concerned. The rejection of the books of account on the basis of a single transaction was also not justified specifically in view of the fact that the Assessee produced the paper on 26.11.1994 relating to the orders made by Triveni Sheet Glass Works Limited. As stated earlier since it was a local transaction it could very well have been verified from the office of Triveni Sheet Glass which is a registered dealer in the same local area.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the matter requires reconsideration by the assessing authority. The matter is remanded to the assessing authority to reconsider and re-examine the issue relating to 173 pieces of timber alleged to have been sold by the Assessee to Triveni Sheet Glass Works Limited and after its due examination the quantum of the estimate may be refixed.

The matter on remand shall be reconsidered within a period of three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order being placed before the Tribunal. Certified copy of this order may be produced before the Tribunal within a period of three weeks from today.

Any amount already deposited by the revisionist in pursuance of the impugned orders passed by the authorities below and in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court, shall remain in deposit and shall be subject to the final orders passed by the Tribunal.

The writ petition is disposed of.