TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the revision but all the said questions are interrelated. The only question of law which arises for consideration by this court is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case manipulated enhanced figure of sale and purchase and stock furnished by the dealer to the bank for the purposes of obtaining loan would amount to relevant material for the purposes of reassessment under section 21 of the Act and based on these projected figures, reassessment and determination of turnover and tax liability would be justified? The dealer is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of iron and steel. For the assessment year 2000-01 it disclosed a turnover of Rs. 1,34,931 and admitted liability of trade tax on the said sale at four per ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eet filed before the bank was only for the purposes of obtaining loan and also for increase of the cash credit limit. It also relied upon two decisions of this court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Prakash Engineering Company reported in [1970] UPTC 426 and also in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Shri Ram Food reported in [2004] UPTC 680. It further took into consideration actual payment made by the dealer of his telephone bills and electricity bills in the relevant assessment year and also the figures of telephone bills and electricity bills as depicted in the balance sheet before the bank. Aggrieved by judgment of the appellate authority the Commissioner of Trade Tax preferred a second appeal before the Trade Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sales Tax, U.P. v. Prakash Engineering Company reported in [1970] UPTC 426. 2.. Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Shri Ram Food reported in [2004] UPTC 680. 3.. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Panna Lal Pramod Kumar reported in [2006] 29 NTN 226. 4.. P. C Ittymathew & Sons v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) reported in [2001] 121 STC 1 (SC); [2001] UPTC 256 (SC). 5.. Girdhari Lal Nannelal v. Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P. reported in [1977] 39 STC 30 (SC). From a perusal of the assessment order dated January 30, 2003 it may be noted that before the assessing authority the dealer had maintained all the account books in order and no discrepancy was found. The assessing authority had further noted that the declared t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terial on record to show that apart from the transaction disclosed by the dealer before the department there was any other transaction with any party. In case the account books were to be rejected there have to be sufficient material before the authority to show that the transactions were beyond and outside the account books. The burden lay on the department in such a case, which the department had failed to discharge. Similar view was taken by the apex court in the case of Girdhari Lal Nannelal [1977] 39 STC 30 wherein this court held as follows (page 33):- ". . . As against that, for the purpose of levy of sales tax it would be necessary not only to show that the source of money has not been explained but also to show the existence ....