2013 (5) TMI 648

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y For the Respondent : C. S. C. ORDER Both the revisions have been filed by the assessee under section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 against the common judgment and order dated 29.09.2012 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in Appeals No.63 of 2007; and 64 of 2007 for the assessment years mentioned above. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was engag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds the order of the First Appellate Authority in toto. Not being satisfied, the assessee has knocked the door of this Court by filing the present revisions. With this background, Sri J. N. Pandey, learned counsel for the assessee - revisionist submits that the petitioner's firm was registered on 10.01.2004 and after a month, a survey was conducted. So, this was the beginning of the business. He....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....After hearing both the parties, and on perusal of record, it appears that the assessee was running a business but without any registration. On the spot, one saw mill piling machine, one cutting machine were found. No proper books of accounts were maintained. It was only before some days of the survey that the assessee got its registration. Had there not been any survey, the assessee might have esc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....io laid down in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Stoneman Marble Industries and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 758. Similar views were expressed by this Hon'ble High Court in the following cases: 1. TTR - 139 of 2002 M/S Abdul Aziz Ashfaq Ahmed vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax decided on 14.07.2011; 2. TTR 137 of 2002, M/S Steel Fabricators Lucknow v. Commissioner of Trade Tax decided on 14....