TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he State and Central Act. It is carrying on business of manufacturing, selling and trading of poultry feed, feeds supplement, fibre glass and cooling tower spares. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1998-99. In its return the dealer declared total taxable sales under the U.P. Trade Tax Act to the tune of Rs. 61,64,538 and admitted tax liability of Rs. 2,40,692. Under the Central Sales Tax Act the dealer declared its taxable turnover to be Rs. 3,21,90,277 and admitted tax liability of Rs. 7,21,932. With regard to the liability under the State Act the assessing authority rejected the accounts book of the dealer based on the survey made on January 28, 1999 and estimated the total taxable turnover to be Rs. 91,95,988 and raised a dem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he applicant/revisionist under the Central Sales Tax Act? (iii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in disbelieving the stock transfer made by revisionist to its head office and treating the same as inter-State sale? (iv) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in not granting the benefit of form F duly furnished by the revisionist? (v) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in confirming the best judgment assessment order and rejecting the books of account? (vi) Whether in any view of the matter the impugned order of the Tribunal is sustainable in the eyes of law? (vii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in not considering the submission of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned Standing Counsel, representing the Department. From the perusal of the orders passed by the authorities, it is apparent that the reasons for raising the demand of tax under the Central and the State Acts are different but the orders passed by all the three authorities are common. With regard to the liability under the Central Act the issue which survives is with regard to rejection of certain stock transfers claimed by the dealer treating them to be inter-State sale. The assessing authority placed reliance upon the survey report in which certain documents were found. According to the assessing officer the said documents indicated that actually it was not the case of stock transfer from the factory of the dealer situate in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....him the burden required to be discharged by the dealer claiming transfer of goods otherwise by way of sale as required under the said provision has been duly discharged. According to the said provision it was required under law that the declaration duly filled up and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority, along with the evidence of despatch of such goods would establish that all such transactions accompanied by such declaration would be by stock transfer. It is not in dispute that any of the form F submitted by the dealer was either found to be incorrect, forged, fabricat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred to one item magnesium sulphate mentioned at Serial No. 2 in the list. According to him the difference which is noted in the survey report to be of 1615 kilogram had been received only on the previous date of the survey, i.e., January 27, 1999. Thus on account of paucity of time it was not recorded. Even if this explanation is accepted there is no explanation with regard to the other 46 items for which differences were found. There was no explanation for such large number of other goods. This according to me is a question which would have required evidence and no evidence having been led by the dealer to explain the difference, the view taken by the authorities below in rejecting the accounts book while determining the liability ....