Reasoned turnover estimation on survey material cannot be overturned without cogent reasons, and corresponding tax liability follows the accepted estimate.

Where a first appellate authority makes a reasoned factual estimate of suppressed purchase and sales turnover on survey material and seized invoices, a later appellate forum cannot disturb that estimate without cogent reasons. Here, the books were rejected after a survey and irregularities in invoice records were found, but the first appellate authority reduced the estimated evaded turnover after examining the disputed invoices and business circumstances. The Tribunal enhanced the estimate without adequately addressing that factual assessment. The High Court restored the first appellate authority's estimate and modified the tax consequence accordingly, so the Tribunal's enhancement of liability did not survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in disturbing the first appellate authority's estimate of evaded purchase and sale turnover made on the basis of the survey material and seized invoices. (ii) Whether the consequential tax liability, including the liability affirmed by the first appellate authority, called for modification.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in disturbing the first appellate authority's estimate of evaded purchase and sale turnover made on the basis of the survey material and seized invoices.

Analysis: The assessment arose from proceedings under Section 28(2)(ii) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 after a survey at the business premises. The books of account were rejected on the basis of adverse material found during the survey, including irregularities in tax invoice book No. 6. The first appellate authority examined the material in detail, considered 14 disputed invoices, and, taking into account the nature and size of the business and the timing of the survey, reduced the estimated evaded turnover to Rs. 40 lakh for purchases and Rs. 50 lakh for sales. The Tribunal, while affirming rejection of books, enhanced the estimate without recording adequate reasons for discarding the first appellate authority's factual assessment.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the first appellate authority's estimate; the estimate fixed by the first appellate authority was restored.

Issue (ii): Whether the consequential tax liability, including the liability affirmed by the first appellate authority, called for modification.

Analysis: Once the estimate of turnover was confined to the figures adopted by the first appellate authority, the tax consequence had to follow that determination. The liability based on the Tribunal's enhanced estimate could not survive, while the liability worked out by the first appellate authority on the reduced turnover remained intact.

Conclusion: The consequential tax liability was modified in line with the first appellate authority's order, and the further enhancement made by the Tribunal did not survive.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded only to the extent of setting aside the Tribunal's enhancement of turnover and restoring the first appellate authority's estimate and the corresponding liability; the matter was finally disposed of by partial allowance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the first appellate authority records a reasoned factual estimate of suppressed turnover on survey material and seized documents, a further appellate forum cannot disturb that estimate without cogent reasons.

---