Sales tax exemption for tube-well jali failed; unrecorded sariya sales and estimated turnover were upheld.

Sales tax exemption for "sariya jali" failed because the assessee's own earlier statement and quarterly returns showed sales of tube-well jali, so the Tribunal treated the exemption claim as unsupported and upheld the levy. The finding of unaccounted sales of "sariya" was also sustained because the assessment recorded an undisclosed sale of Rs. 7,500 to M/s. Kuldeep Engineering Works, and the Sales Tax Officer's further estimate of Rs. 10,000 in sales was affirmed. No legal infirmity was found in either finding, and the revision was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods described as "sariya jali" manufactured for use in "rahat" were exempt from sales tax as an agricultural implement; (ii) Whether the assessee had sold "sariya" outside the books and whether the estimate of such sales was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the goods described as "sariya jali" manufactured for use in "rahat" were exempt from sales tax as an agricultural implement.

Analysis: The assessee's own earlier statement before the Sales Tax Officer and the quarterly returns showed sales of tube-well "jali". On that material, the Tribunal treated the claim of exemption as unsupported and concluded that the goods sold were tube-well "jali" rather than agricultural implements.

Conclusion: The exemption claim failed and the levy of sales tax was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee had sold "sariya" outside the books and whether the estimate of such sales was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessment order recorded sale of "sariya" worth Rs. 7,500 to M/s. Kuldeep Engineering Works which was not accounted for in the books, and the Sales Tax Officer estimated further sales at Rs. 10,000. That finding was affirmed by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The finding of unaccounted sales of "sariya" and the estimate adopted below were upheld.

Final Conclusion: No legal infirmity was found in the Tribunal's findings on either issue, and the revision was dismissed with costs.

---