TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bility under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Although the dealer has raised several questions of law but in effect they can be summarised as following two questions only: (1) Whether, on the facts of the case the authorities below were justified in enhancing the turnover even though the account books maintained by the dealer as required under law were found to be correct except that the average selling rate was not accepted? (2) Whether the authorities below were justified in enhancing the selling rate without there being any material on record? The dealer is involved in manufacturing of rice. For the same it has to purchase paddy which is the raw material. In the relevant assessment year the dealer purchased 14296 quintals of paddy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd issued a show-cause notice proposing to impose tax on the difference treating it to be sale of rice not disclosed in the return. This amount has been quantified at Rs. 22,47,743. The dealer submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice and explained that large quantity of rice was sold by it through the Regional Food Controller, Allahabed to the F.C.I. (Food Corporation of India) Naini, Depot, Allahabad. The said sales made by it were of good quality of rice and therefore, the rate of sale in such transactions was higher. The dealer had disclosed the rate of Rs. 903 with regard to the sale made to the R.F.C. This fact is not disputed. However, with regard to the other cash sales made by it the rate varied from Rs. 680 to Rs. 720 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rate of Rs. 720 also. However, in the month of October the sale shown is at much lower rate being Rs. 330 to Rs. 350. The assessing officer did not accept the explanation of the dealer and imposed an additional tax of Rs. 72,487. The appeal filed by the dealer was dismissed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal) by a non-speaking order only on the ground that the assessing officer had dealt with all the issues in details. The second appeal filed by the dealer was also dismissed and the same reasoning was given by the Tribunal that the opening stock of the dealer is presumed to have all quality of rice. The submission of Sri M.M. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, is that none of the authorities has actually considered the explanation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is highly improbable to believe that it would have sold the rice at a lesser rate. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, and having perused the order passed by the authorities below in my opinion there does rise question of law warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction inasmuch as the authorities without recording any finding on the prevalent market rate of rice have enhanced the same merely on conjectures without any basis. The fact that the value of the opening stock was at Rs. 840 was not disputed. It is also not disputed that the dealer had sold rice to FCI at the rate higher than the rate disclosed of the opening stock. The rice sold to the FCI was substantial in quantity. Further the exp....