TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1023
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2003-04). Facts in short leading to the filing of the present trade tax revision are as follows:- A survey was conducted at the place of business of the assessee by the Trade Tax Department on October 14, 2003. At the time of survey, various infirmities including sale of auto parts by the assessee through estimate books other than cash memos, etc., were found. The assessee did not produce any accounts books at the time of survey. Having regard to the seized documents, the discrepancies noticed in the sale and the mode and manner of preparation of records by the assessee, proceedings under section 41(8) of the Trade Tax Act were initiated. The proceedings culminated in an order dated April 30, 2004, wherein it was estimated that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the levy of tax treating the assessee to be a "manufacturer" within the meaning of section 2(ee) of the Trade Tax Act was justified. Accordingly, second appeal has been allowed. Challenging the order so passed, Sri Kunwar Saksena, learned counsel for the assessee, contends that both the assessing authority as well as the Tribunal have held that in respect of estimated sales of Rs. 1,20,000, the goods had been made with reference to the goods purchased by the assessee from an unregistered dealer. Such purchase from unregistered dealer cannot be taken to be the first sale within the State of Uttar Pradesh, so as to bring the assessee within the meaning of "manufacturer" provided under section 2(ee) of the Trade Tax Act. He submits that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is legally justified in allowing the appeal. Reference is made to the judgement in the case of Kashmiri Lal Kanti Prasad, Moradabad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. reported in [1984] 9 ATJ 17 specifically paragraph 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record of the present trade tax revision. According to the assessee, he was making purchase from registered dealers within the State of Uttar Pradesh and that all purchases so made were recorded in the relevant purchase register, which was produced at the time of survey. In order to appreciate the controversy raised, it would be worthwhile to reproduce section 2(ee) and section 12A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been provided that if such information, which is in his exclusive possession of the dealer is not disclosed, the assessing authority shall presume the absence of such circumstances. This court in the case of Kashmiri Lal Kanti Prasad reported in, [1984] 9 ATJ 17, in paragraph 12 has laid down as follows:- "12. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this court in the case of Lajja Ram Mahesh Dutt. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1974] UPTC 472. In that case, the fact to be determined was whether the match boxes sold by the assessee which were admittedly manufactured outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, were imported by the assessee. The Bench held that this fact b....