TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (7) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In those returns it disclosed its net purchase of oil-seed at Rs. 3,81,904.61. Sale of self manufactured oil in the course of inter-State sale was disclosed at Rs. 18,944 on which tax liability was admitted at 1 per cent only. Inter-State sale of oil was disclosed at Rs. 3,24,410.45 claiming exemption on sale worth Rs. 74,961.95 on the ground that it was made to vegetable oil manufactured against Kha forms, net turnover was disclosed at Rs. 2,49,448.50. However, at the time of assessment the assessee neither produced any Kha form nor any C form with the result the exemption claimed in the case and the benefit of reduced rate of tax in the case relating to inter-State sale was denied to the assessee. The assessing officer rejected the disclo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to be interfered with. The assessee then took the matter before the judge (Revisions), Sales Tax [Revision Application No. 699 of 1977 (1972-73) U.P. and Revision Application No. 700 of 1977 (1973-74) Central]. In both the cases it claimed the rejection of the account books by the assessing authority was not justified, and questioned the correctness of the quantum of turnover determined by those authorities. Before the judge (Revisions) the assessee also claimed that it should have been given the benefit of forms Kha and C which he had filed with his application under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act before the sales tax authorities and that the tax should have been calculated after taking into account those forms. The Judge (Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), Sales Tax, Lucknow, the assessee has now approached this Court by way of these two revision applications under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act [whereas Sales Tax Revision No. 23 of 1981 pertains to assessment proceedings in respect of the assessee (U.P. assessment) for the year 1972-73, Sales Tax Revision No. 24 of 1981 is in respect of the assessee (Central assessment) for the year 1973-74]. These revision applications were filed on 2nd February, 1981. On behalf of the respondent an objection has been raised that these applications are barred by time and should be dismissed as such. The period of limitation prescribed for the purpose, under section 11(1) read with section 11(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, is 90 days fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent did not produce any material before the court to indicate that the said acknowledgment receipt bore the signature of any person who was either a partner of the assessee's firm or its agent. There is no reason to disbelieve the applicant when it says that the registered cover dated 2nd April, 1980, containing a copy of the revisional order dated 20th March, 1980, was not delivered to it or its authorised agent. The presumption that a registered article sent by registered post had been duly delivered to the addressee, therefore, stands rebutted and the period of limitation for filing the revision application cannot be computed with reference to the date 5th April, 1980. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent then contended tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as disclosed by the assessee in its returns and for upholding the assessment made by the sales tax authorities. The assessee in this case did not produce its account books before the sales tax authorities. In the circumstances the assessing authority was quite justified in making the best judgment assessment and no interference in the assessment order by this Court is on the record called for. Learned counsel for the applicant next contended that the Sales Tax Officer had enhanced the turnover disclosed by the assessee in respect of inter-State sale of groundnut oil from Rs. 18,944 to Rs. 22,000 and had applied the rate of 10 per cent instead of 1 per cent as claimed by it. He urged that at the relevant time such turnover could be taxed....