2009 (11) TMI 843 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court Upholds Tax Increase Decision, Rejects Jurisdiction Challenge

Rajiv Kumar Rajneesh Kumar Versus Commissioner of Trade Tax, UP., Lucknow

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to restore the assessing officer's order, increasing tax by Rs. 24,000. The Court dismissed the ... Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not acted beyond its jurisdiction by giving its finding in respect of consignments being transported by truck No. URN 9676 and USD 3967 when the dispute regarding these consignments was finally settled by the order of first appellate authority against which no ground was taken in the memorandum of appeal by the respondent? Held that:- As there was no form C with all the three trucks when they were intercepted at the check-post. Later, it was found that there was no proper entry in the books of accounts. The gate passes were issued by the mandi samiti pertaining to first two trucks, is not a conclusive proof that the goods were properly shown in the books of accounts.he gate pass can be issued to any vehicle which is crossing the gate of the mandi samiti after paying necessary fee. In these circumstances, the order of the assessing officer agreed who has rightly rejected the books of account and estimated the turnover. Regarding the additional ground, it may be mentioned that it can be raised before the Tribunal even it was not raised before the lower authorities. Revision filed by the assessee is dismissed. Issues:Assessment of turnover based on seized goods without proper documentation, Jurisdiction of Tribunal in considering consignments, Admissibility of additional grounds before Tribunal, Rejection of books of accounts, Deletion of addition by first appellate authority without remand report.Assessment of Turnover:During the assessment year, the assessee, engaged in trading foodgrain items, had goods seized at a check-post for lacking form C. The assessing officer rejected the books of accounts, estimated turnover, and levied tax. The first appellate authority reduced tax on goods carried by two trucks with gate passes but upheld tax on goods from a third truck without a gate pass. The Tribunal restored the assessing officer's order and increased tax by Rs. 24,000. The revisionist argued that the Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by reviving tax on the first two trucks, which the first appellate authority had reduced. The Department was not allowed to raise additional grounds before the Tribunal.Jurisdiction of Tribunal:The revisionist contended that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by revisiting consignments from the first two trucks, settled by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal's decision was challenged based on the argument that the Department was restricted to appealing the tax on the third truck only.Admissibility of Additional Grounds:The revisionist claimed that the Department was not permitted to introduce additional grounds before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal upheld the right to raise additional grounds even if not presented before lower authorities, citing relevant legal precedents.Rejection of Books of Accounts:The assessing officer rejected the books of accounts due to discrepancies in recording goods and estimated turnover accordingly. The first appellate authority deleted the addition for the first two trucks based on gate passes issued by the mandi samiti, which was deemed inconclusive evidence.Deletion of Addition without Remand Report:The first appellate authority removed the addition for the first two trucks without a remand report from the assessing officer, solely relying on gate passes from the mandi samiti. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no reason to interfere, and dismissed the revision filed by the assessee.