TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), thereby dismissing the second appeal preferred by the revisionist. 3. The revision has been admitted on 10.12.2009, on the following questions of law : (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified to allow State Appeal and restore the assessment order thus confirming rejection of book-version and determining taxable turnover of imported goods whereas the entire purchases made by the revisionist being from within the State as also admitted and determined by the assessing authority and no forms for import of goods having been used, there was no liability of tax on the sales made by the revisionist? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment year 2001-02, the revisionist was assessed by the Assessing Authority, wherein the revisionist was found to have purchased plyboard and hardware from registered dealers amounting to Rs. 14,77,573/- against gross sales of Rs. 18,86,581.17, which was accepted by the Assessing Authority. Subsequently, a survey was conducted at the business premises of M/s Gomti Interiors, Gomti Nagar on 03.02.2002 by the SIB, Lucknow, where 17 loose papers relating to estimate-statement prepared by the revisionist were seized. The papers indicated supply of material by the revisionist to M/s Gomti Interiors, Gomti Nagar and it was found that the amount mentioned in the estimates was much more than what was declared by the revisionist in his bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred to as "the First Appellate Authority"). In the first appeal the revisionist contended that all the goods have been purchased by him from registered dealers on which no tax is leviable as per provisions of Section 3A of the Act, 1948 and there has been no evidence with regard to evasion of tax since no goods have been purchased by the revisionist from unregistered dealers on which he could be liable to pay trade tax. The revisionist further submitted that the entire transaction relating to the revisionist were within the State on which no trade tax is payable and further that he had not sought any Form from the State authorities for intra-State trade, which also clearly indicates that on all the transactions made by the revisionis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visionist has manipulated the records and all the goods sent to the purchaser were not mentioned in the bills of the revisionist and thereupon upheld the order of the Assessing Authority in rejecting the books of account of the revisionist and making assessment on the basis of best judgment. It has also been recorded by the Tribunal is that the period under consideration was only three months, wherein in the value of transaction of the revisionist with M/s Gomti Interiors was Rs. 2,77,805/- and has observed that the revisionist must have been involved in evasion of tax in transaction with other purchasers also and therefore concluded that there is no illegality in the assessment order and therefore set aside the order of first Appellate Aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Revenue has not disputed this fact before any of the authorities below. 13. Second aspect which needs consideration is as to whether in supplying the goods the revisionist was engaged in purchases from outside the State for which declaration and Form is required to be obtained from the respondent. It is admitted case that the revisionist had not obtained any goods from outside the State and also that no goods were purchased from the unregistered dealers, was exempted from tax. 14. In the light of provisions of contained in Section 3A of the Act, 1948, the revisionist had infact declared goods purchased by him from the registered dealers and the First Appellate Authority has also considered the fact that in subsequent years also no....