2014 (2) TMI 534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rship firm, who engaged in the business of executing civil contracts. The firm is duly registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, and Central Sales Tax Act. The revisionist had opted for compounding scheme for the payment of composition fee in lieu of Trade Tax under Section 7-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, for Civil Contractors for the assessment year 1996-97 to 1999-2000. The compounding scheme was also accepted by the assessing authority for the assessment year under consideration i.e. 1998-99 as he has passed the assessment order under Section 7-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act on 24.03.2001 and levied the composition fee @1%, as provided in the official circular letter dated 23.07.1996. During the assessment year under consideration, the rev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tarily disclosed the imported items from outside the U.P. and the same were accepted by the assessing officer. At the cost of repetition, learned counsel again submits that for all the years, orders were passed under section 7-D of the Act and the department has accepted the application of the revisionist under compounding scheme, which shows that figures of these purchases were never doubted by the assessing authority otherwise the A.O. would have rejected these purchases and passed best judgment assessment orders under Section 7(D) of the Act or Rule 41 (8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules. For this purpose, he has relied on the following cases: 1. Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jageshwar Dayal Khandsari Dev Kali Powayan Shahjahanpur; 1985....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act. The similar assessments were passed for the previous and subsequent assessment years. It is vital to note that books of accounts were never rejected. The penalty was imposed on the amount shown by the revisionist for the purchases. The same was not disturbed by the A.O. The only charge is that Forms 31 were not produced at the check posts. The revisionist has also not informed the department within the prescribed time but fact remains that how the officers at the check posts had allowed to cross the goods of the revisionist without proper paper or verification of Forms-31. Nowhere, it is mentioned that the department has taken any action against the said officers. Similarly, when the revisionist has not informed the department within ....