Gulab Trading Company vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned counsel for the respondent.

This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 13.7.2016 in Second Appeal No.18 of 2015(2011-2012) under Section 28(2), passed by Member Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-I Agra, whereby the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed and the order of the First Appellate Authority has been upheld.

Learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that the impugned order is wholly non speaking and it has been passed without application of mind. The Tribunal has not considered even a single argument advanced by the assessee either on the question of correctness of the invoice or on determination of evaded turnover. He submits that according to the assessing authority four invoices were found unreliable because of alleged manipulation. Total value of these four invoices comes to Rs.97,933.00 against which addition in turnover to the tune of Rs.22,50,000/- has been sustained by the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. He submits that there is no basis for addition in turnover by Rs.22,50,000/-. No discrepancy, whatsoever, was found in the books of accounts and the invoices except the aforesaid four invoices which in fact was also not manipulation.

Learned standing counsel supports the impugned order of the Tribunal.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has not given any justifiable reason for enhancement of turnover by Rs.22,50,000/-. It has not recorded its independent finding either on the quantum of turnover or on the correctness of the invoices, despite being the last fact finding authority.

The entire findings in the impugned order of the Tribunal runs merely in four lines which is as follows:

"There is no appeal by the department. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the rejection of account books on the facts found by the assessing authority and confirmed by the first appellate authority, is correct. It is transparent from the comparison with carbon copies of the sale invoice with the copies available on assessment file that manipulation in the carbon copies was made."

Perusal of the aforequoted finding of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has formed its opinion for rejection of books of accounts, merely on the ground that there is no appeal filed by the department. This can not be basis to reject the appeal of the assessee. The impugned order of the Tribunal is in breach of the mandate of Rules 63(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules which provides that a judgment in Appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. In the impugned order of the Tribunal the Tribunal has neither framed the points for determination nor recorded any reasons for sustaining the enhancement in turnover by Rs.22,50,000/-.

In view of the aforesaid, the revision deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 13.7.2016 in Second Appeal No.18 of 2015 is hereby set aside. The aforesaid second appeal is restored to its original number.

Matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with the direction to rehear the Appeal and pass an appropriate and reasoned order, in accordance with law after recording its finding on the issues involved in the appeal. The Tribunal shall pass the order within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order without being influenced by any of the observations made above. It is further directed that the Tribunal shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.