Tax concession for packing material denied where no proof showed plastic boxes were sold with jewellery.

Plastic boxes could not be treated as jewellery boxes for concessional tax treatment because the relevant notifications covered ornaments of gold and silver, not packing material, and section 3AB applied only where goods were sold with such material. In the absence of proof that the boxes accompanied the ornaments, the concession was unavailable. The account books were also found unreliable because survey material showed manufacturing activity and unsupported expenditure entries, and the record did not justify accepting the books as reflecting the true position. The Tribunal's order was therefore set aside and relief was denied on both issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether plastic boxes sold by the dealer were taxable as jewellery boxes at 2.5% and entitled to the benefit of section 3AB of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948; (ii) Whether the account books of the dealer were rightly accepted despite adverse survey material.

Issue (i): Whether plastic boxes sold by the dealer were taxable as jewellery boxes at 2.5% and entitled to the benefit of section 3AB of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The relevant notifications covered ornaments made of gold and silver and did not extend to packing material. Section 3AB applied only where goods were sold along with packing material. There was no evidence that the alleged jewellery boxes, which were in fact plastic boxes, were sold together with jewellery. In the absence of proof that the boxes accompanied the ornaments, the benefit of the provision could not be extended.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in treating the plastic boxes as jewellery boxes or in granting the benefit of section 3AB.

Issue (ii): Whether the account books of the dealer were rightly accepted despite adverse survey material.

Analysis: The record showed adverse material found during survey, including manufacturing activity and absence of supporting expenditure entries. The Tribunal's acceptance of the account books was unsupported by evidence showing that the books accurately reflected the true position in the face of the survey findings.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in accepting the account books of the dealer.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed, and the Tribunal's order was set aside in favour of the State on both questions.

Ratio Decidendi: The benefit of a tax concession for packing material cannot be claimed unless there is evidence that the goods were actually sold along with the relevant principal goods within the scope of the applicable notification and statutory provision.

---