TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue. 2. Present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Muzaffar Nagar dated 29.12.2012 passed in Second Appeal No. 299 of 2012 for A.Y. 2008-09 (UP). By that order, the Tribunal has partly allowed the assessee's appeal and reduced the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment year in question. 4. As for A.Y. 2007-08, similar best judgment assessment had been made by the assessing authority. Upon revision being filed by the assessee for that year being Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 378 of 2012 (M/S Sunita Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax), the same came to be allowed by order dated 05.10.2016 wherein this Court has held as below: "In light ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been pressed on the following question of law: "Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the account books of the applicant and presuming sale of raw material only due to low production yield, even after accepting the production and the explanation furnished by the applicant regarding the low quality of raw material, for which the information has also been given to the excise department?....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....credit notes that evidenced low quality of raw material. 9. Once the Tribunal has itself recorded the finding that the entire production activity was regularly monitored by the excise authorities and that the raw material was of poor quality, there did not exist any material to reject the books of accounts of the assessee solely on account of electricity consumption appearing to be in excess. 10....