AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 25,96,823. The taxable turnover under the said Act was shown as Rs. 12,26,463 whereas under the Central Act no sale was declared. The assessing authority noticed certain discrepancy in the return filed by the dealer and accordingly issued show-cause notice dated March 18, 1994 calling upon the dealer to submit his explanation on the five points mentioned in the notice. The first point related to difference of Rs. 85,567 in the return and the account books. The second point was with regard to decline in turnover in the relevant assessment year from the previous year. The third point on which the dealer was called upon was with regard to survey dated February 5, 1993. According to the notice at the time of survey the account books were not produced. The next point was with regard to the report submitted by the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) dated June 6, 1993. According to the said report in survey/inspection dated March 2, 1993 at the business premises of S/Sri Great Rai Transporter Company, Agra Road, Aligarh certain documents were seized in which five goods receipt (bilties) were found relating to the dealer. According to these goods receipt the dealer had dispatched certain goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in sustaining the rejection of books of account? (ii) Whether the rejection of books of account is based on relevant considerations? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in estimating the taxable turnover at Rs. 30,00,000?" In the revision relating to the demand under the Central Act the following questions of law have been raised: "(i) Whether, on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in sustaining the rejection of books of account? (ii) Whether the rejection of books of account is based on relevant consideration? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in estimating the taxable turnover at Rs. 2 lakhs? (iv) Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in denying the turnover of form C for Rs. 85,568.75 which was said before the first appellate authority? At the outset it has been pointed out that with regard to the point Nos. 3 and 5 mentioned in the show-cause notice by the assessing authority, the Tribunal has held in favour of the dealer. The said issues no longer remain for consideration in this revision. Coming to the first issue ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther than what has been disclosed by the dealer lies upon the Department and the assessing authority is required to discharge its burden by collecting cogent material to record a finding against the dealer with regard to the escapement of turnover. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Laki Bartan Store, Mauranipur, Jhansi reported in [2005] 28 NTN 69. On the other hand Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel, has submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal based on consideration of material evidence on record is a pure finding of fact and does not call for any interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction. He has further submitted that the decline in turnover coupled with other factors can be a ground for rejection of account books. He has further submitted that there was clear discrepancy in the returns submitted by the dealer and the account books and therefore, also the rejection of account books cannot be said to be bad. He further submits that even though the dealer admits that the transaction with the Gwalior party was a Central sales but as it had not filed any revised return....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the dealer. Merely because transaction of four out of five goods receipts were entered in the account books subsequent to the show-cause notice given by the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) it cannot be presumed that the dealer had maintained the account books in order and in accordance with law. The Sales Tax Officer (SIB) had given a show-cause notice with regard to the transaction covered by five goods receipts but the dealer admittedly failed to appear before the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) nor did he submit any explanation. Presumption is that there was some irregularity with regard to the said transaction. Further, the dealer having admitted that the transaction covered by one of the goods receipts related to an inter-State sale against form C and the dealer was liable to pay tax at the lower rate of four per cent instead of normal rate of eight per cent, but no such turnover having been disclosed under the Central Act nor any revised return having been filed by the dealer even after receiving show-cause notice given by Sales Tax Officer (SIB) as also the assessing authority during assessment, it appears that the dealer had all intentions of evading tax. The dealer had declared no turn....