2011 (7) TMI 1061 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court Affirms Tax Assessment on Tractor Sale Appeals

Eicher Farm Machinery Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade Tax, UP., Lucknow

The High Court upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner and Tribunal in dismissing the appeals challenging the assessment of tax on the sale of 78 ... Whether the sale of 78 tractors in fact was made by the assessee and not by M/s. Premier Tractor Co., Mathura? Held that:- Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the records, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of fact recorded by the tax authorities including the Tribunal in the facts of the case cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. No substantial question of law arises in the present revision. Issues:1. Validity of trade tax revision against Trade Tax Tribunal's order.2. Assessment of tax on the sale of 78 tractors.3. Opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.4. Conclusive findings by the tax authorities.5. Dismissal of appeals by Deputy Commissioner and Tribunal.6. Relevance of assessment order for the firm at Mathura.7. Consideration of discrepancies in the D.L.R.Analysis:1. The trade tax revision challenged the Trade Tax Tribunal's order from 2003 regarding the assessment year 1985-86. The Tribunal remanded the case to the assessing authority for reconsideration based on specific directions related to the sale of 78 tractors by the assessee. The subsequent detailed show-cause notice allowed the assessee to respond and present evidence, including the opportunity to produce partners of the firm involved.2. The assessing authority, after considering the explanation provided by the revisionist, concluded that the sale of 78 tractors was indeed done by the assessee and not by the firm at Mathura. This finding was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal, emphasizing that the assessee failed to produce the necessary evidence to refute the initial statement recorded by the Department.3. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee did not avail the opportunity to present the partners of the firm to contradict the earlier statement. The authorities found evidence supporting the fact that the sale was conducted by the assessee from Ghaziabad, not by the firm at Mathura, despite the firm's exemption from tax payment in a separate assessment order.4. The assessing authority's detailed examination of the records and evidence led to the conclusion that the sale was correctly attributed to the assessee. The dismissal of the appeals by the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal affirmed the conclusive findings reached after considering the discrepancies noticed in the D.L.R.5. The High Court, after reviewing the case and the records, found no grounds to challenge the factual findings of the tax authorities and the Tribunal. It was determined that no substantial question of law arose in the revision, leading to the dismissal of the revision accordingly. The judgment upheld the decisions made by the lower authorities based on the evidence and proceedings presented during the case.