High Court
Case Details
1 Court No. - 1 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 138 of 2013 Revisionist :- M/S Asian Paints India Ltd. Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel,
Legal Reasoning
has been rejected. This Court in the case of M/s Annapurna Mills, Fatehpur Vs. CST reported in 1992 UPTC 527 has held that if the books of account of U.P. have been rejected, the same cannot be a good ground for rejecting the books of account of the Central unless & until any adverse material is found. 9. In the case in hand, no material, whatsoever, has been brought on record to show any suppression under the Central sales. Therefore, the books of account, without any cogent reason or material on record, cannot be rejected on the ground that U.P. books of account were rejected. In the case in hand under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, the disclosed turnover and the books of account of the applicant have been accepted by this Court in TTR No. 137 of 2013. On this count also, rejection of the books of 4 account cannot be upheld now. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by this Court, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. 11. The revision is partly allowed. The questions of law are answered accordingly. Order Date :-18/04/2022 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2022.04.20 17:08:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
assisted by Shri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party. 2. The present revision has been filed against the judgement & order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench - 2, Agra in Second Appeal No. 34 of 1999 for the assessment year 1993-94, in which following questions of law have been framed:- “i. Whether in the facts & circumstances of the case, tribunal was correct disallow the stock transfer for want of Form F when the other evidences like G.R. Transfer invoice, stock transfer and builties were submitted relating to each stock transfer? ii. Whether the tribunal was correct to reject the books of account under Central Sales Tax Act and estimate the central turnover without pointing any suppression in Central turnover on the ground that the books of having being rejected?” 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that while framing the assessment order dated 31.01.1997, the books of account of the revisionist was rejected solely on the ground that books of account under the Central has been rejected and therefore, the same was rejected and the suppressed sale of Rs. 20 lacs was fixed. He further submits that the stock transfer of Rs. 3,20,934/- was rejected in absence of Form F as provided under the Act. He submits that filing of Form was not mandatory at the relevant point of time, but the stock transfer was proved by other 2 material on record, which has been ignored. The matter went to appeal upto the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the stock transfer vide order dated 26.03.2004. The Tribunal, in its order, has accepted the stock transfer, but so far as rejection of books of account was concerned, without any reference, has affirmed the order. The revisionist moved an application under section 22 of the Act, which was not considered. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has affirmed the rejection order, but only fixed the suppressed sale as Rs. 5 lacs and reopened the issue which was not under consideration so far as the stock transfer was concerned. He prays for allowing the revision. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned order and prays that there was a suppression as stock transfer was rejected. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the revision. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the issue of stock transfer was rejected by framing original assessment order, which was accepted by the Tribunal in the order dated 26.03.2004, which is quoted below: “ इस कारण केन््ቖीय मामले मे व्यापारी के िविरू्ቍ जो िबि्ቅी मे अभिभिविነቍि्ቍ की गई है, उचिचित है और केविल रू० 3,20,936.00 के स्टाक टरान्सफर के सन्रታभिर मे व्यापािरक को तकर स्विीकार िकये जाने योग्य है लेिकन व्यापारी के उच्ሹ स्टाक टरान्सफर के सन्रታभिर मे फामर एफ न ्ቚस्तुत िकये जाने के कारण स्टाक टरान्सफर के रूप मे मान्यता नही रታी गई है। केन््ቖीय िबि्ቅीकर अभिििनयम के अभन्तगरत फामर एफ रታािखिल िकया जाना आविश्यक नही है। इस िबिन्रታु पर व्यापारी ्ቛारा जो अभिभिलेिखित साቌኚयो की ्ቚितयाँ रታािखिल की गई है उचनसे स्प्ቖ होता है िक उचपरो्ሹानुसार व्यापारी का स्टाक टरान्सफर से ही संबिंिित संम्यव्यविहार है। अभतः उच्ሹ संव्यविहार के संरታभिर मे व्यापारी को रू० 3,20,936.00 पर 15 ्ቚितशत की रታर से आरोिवित कर रू० 48,140.40 समा् होने योग्य है तरታानुसार इसी अभंश तक केन््ቖीय अभपील अभंशतः स्विीकार होने योग्य है।” 3 7. But since the books of account was rejected without any reference, application under section 22 of the Act was moved and when the same was not decided, the applicant approached this Court by filing TTR No. 955 of 2004, which was allowed on 12.12.2011 directing the Tribunal to decide the review application. In pursuance thereof, the impugned order was passed, by which the Tribunal reopening the issue of stock transfer, which was not under consideration. Once the matter was settled, it is not opened for the Tribunal to re-adjudicate the issue as the Revenue never filed any application, so far as acceptance of stock transfer was concerned. This part of the order is bad and the same is hereby set aside. 8. Further, rejection of books of account is a serious matter and should not be rejected lightly. The books of account of the applicant have been rejected merely on the ground that under U.P. Act, books of account have been rejected. No other material has been brought on record. This Court, time and again, has held that books of account cannot be rejected solely on the ground that sale under the U.P. assessment, the books of account of the assessee