Aggregate turnover and single assessable entity rule upheld, but brick valuation required fresh factual reconsideration.

A dealer is assessed on the aggregate turnover of the assessment year, and the same individual does not become a separate assessable entity merely because brick-kiln business was carried on at different places or in different periods within that year. Separate assessment orders were therefore not justified on that basis, and the clubbing of turnover was upheld. The enhancement of the sale rate used for valuing bricks, however, required fresh factual examination because the evidentiary basis for the higher rate and the assessee's lower average rate were both in dispute. The matter was remitted only for reconsideration of the valuation issue, leaving the assessment otherwise intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the turnover of two brick kilns run by the same individual dealer in different periods of the same assessment year could be assessed under separate assessment orders; (ii) whether the enhancement of the sale rate adopted for valuation of bricks required reconsideration.

Issue (i): whether the turnover of two brick kilns run by the same individual dealer in different periods of the same assessment year could be assessed under separate assessment orders.

Analysis: Section 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 contemplates assessment of a dealer on the aggregate turnover of the assessment year. The mere fact that the dealer carried on business through two kilns at different places and during different periods did not create a new assessable entity, since the dealer remained the same individual throughout the year. Section 18 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, dealing with discontinuance or commencement of business, did not create an exception permitting separate assessments of the same dealer merely because one business was discontinued and another commenced within the same year.

Conclusion: the single assessment on the aggregate turnover was upheld and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the enhancement of the sale rate adopted for valuation of bricks required reconsideration.

Analysis: The authorities had adopted a higher sale rate and derived an average rate from that figure, while the assessee relied on evidence of a lower average rate. The basis for adopting the higher rate and the treatment of the assessee's evidence required a fresh factual finding.

Conclusion: this issue was remitted for fresh determination and was decided in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Final Conclusion: the revision succeeded only on the valuation issue, while the challenge to clubbing of turnover for separate kilns failed; the matter was sent back for a limited reconsideration of sale rate and the assessment remained otherwise intact.

Ratio Decidendi: a dealer is assessed on the aggregate turnover of the assessment year, and an individual does not become a separate dealer merely by commencing another business during the same year; separate assessments are not warranted absent a change in the assessable entity.

---