Turnover estimation from seized survey material and deemed manufacturer status both failed for want of evidentiary support.

Turnover estimates based on seized survey documents were sustained because the entries were not reconciled with the books of account and the concurrent factual findings showed no apparent error requiring revisional interference. A plea that the assessee was a deemed manufacturer under section 2(ee) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 also failed because the factual foundation for that alternative contention had not been laid before the authorities below. The revisional court therefore declined to disturb the suppression finding or the turnover estimate, and the revision was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the estimate of suppressed turnover based on the seized documents required interference; (ii) Whether the assessee could be treated as a deemed manufacturer under section 2(ee) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 in respect of the suppressed turnover.

Issue (i): Whether the estimate of suppressed turnover based on the seized documents required interference

Analysis: The suppressed sales were detected from documents seized during survey, and the authorities recorded concurrent findings that the entries were not reconciled with the books of account. The estimate of turnover was therefore founded on material found in the survey and did not suffer from any apparent error warranting revision.

Conclusion: The estimate of suppressed turnover was upheld and no interference was called for.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could be treated as a deemed manufacturer under section 2(ee) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 in respect of the suppressed turnover

Analysis: The plea that the purchases relating to the suppressed turnover were from a manufacturer-dealer whose turnover exceeded the taxable limit was not supported by evidence at any earlier stage. The assessee had consistently taken the stand that the survey and seized documents did not relate to it, and no foundation had been laid before the authorities for the alternative plea. In these circumstances, the contention based on deemed manufacturer status could not be entertained in revision.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the deemed manufacturer plea on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings on suppression and turnover estimation were sustained, and the revisions were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional court will not disturb a turnover estimate based on seized material and concurrent factual findings, and a plea of deemed manufacturer status cannot succeed without supporting evidence laid before the authorities below.

---