TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for Applicant :- Naresh Chandra Mishra,Chandra Has Misra,Ramesh Chandra Mishra Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J. This revision has been filed under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment of tax (central) for the year 2007-08 against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal Lucknow dated 5.6.2014. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the revisionist is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act and in respect of supply of menthol the assessing authority on the basis of best judgment assessment rejecting the claim of cancellation of order for supply of menthol amounting to ₹ 15,00 ,000/- and determined the additional turnover of mentha oil as ₹ 15,00,000/- each and impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commercial Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order at internal page 7 and 8 has recorded the submission of the counsel for the revisionist that 2,500 kg. of menthol under bill no. 7 dated 18.10.2007 was sold but the consignment was seized by the mobile squad and therefore there was delay in the consignment reaching M/S G.K. Burman and as such the transaction itself was cancelled. The Tribunal on the basis of the documents on record thereafter recorded a finding that from examination of the records of M/s G.K. Burman it was found from their stock books that the order had been cancelled due to delay. Having accepted this finding the Tribunal thereafter assessed the unaccounted value of menthol not covered by Form C at ₹ 25,00, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal accepted the case of the revisionist that this transaction had been cancelled by M/s G.K. Burman. Shri N.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist however submitted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enhance the value of the turnover if this issue has never been raised before the authorities below by the Revenue and the findings recorded by the said authorities had been allowed to become final. He has relied upon the following judgments: M/s Allen Roller Four Mills, Bareilly Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax 1999 U.P.T.C. 857 (Allahabad). Relevant paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said judgment read as under: 4. The brief contention of the dealer is that its consignment sales to the extent of ₹ 5,65,34,586.84 P. had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed reliance on the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 10 could not place any authority in support of the action of the Tribunal. The aforesaid provision has been considered by this Court in the aforesaid two judgments holding that the same does not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to order an enhancement on the assessee's appeal or on a second appeal by the when the matter was not in dispute before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the Tribunal's order is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. M/s D.R. Chemicals and Fertilizer, Gorakhpur Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax 2001 U.P.T.C. 180 (Allahabad) by Hon'ble R.K. Agarwal, J (as His Lordship then was). Relevant paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Judicial) in the absence of any grievance to that effect being made by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. M/s Devi Prasad Sunder Lal Khattri, Kannauj, Farrukhabad Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. 1987 U.P.T.C. 787 (Allahabad). Relevant paragraph 3 of the said judgment reads as under: 3. From perusal of the order of the Assistant Commissoner (Judicial) it appears that he clearly stated that the purchases had been made by the assessee from unregistered commission agents, who gave the details of the commission charged by them separately in the bills. No observation was made by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) that any purchase was made from an agriculturist. The Tribunal for the first time recorded a finding that some of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
