Allahabad High Court
Ajai Kumar And Company vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 4 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2001]123STC575(ALL)
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J.
1. The present revision has been filed against the order dated December 14, 1990 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly Bench-II, Bareilly, in the appeal filed by the applicant relating to the assessment year 1980-81. The applicant is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act and is engaged in the business of foodgrains. For the assessment year 1980-81 it disclosed its gross turnover at Rs. 20,28,040.68 paise and net turnover at Rs. 1,32,166.42 paise. The assessing authority disbelieved the applicant's books of account and the disclosed turnover and made a best judgment assessment determining the taxable turnover at Rs. 25,37,040.
2. The first appeal filed by the applicant has been dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) by the order dated January 17, 1990. The second appeal filed by the applicant has been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned order and turnover has been reduced by Rs. 3 lacs only. It may be mentioned here that the applicant did not produce its books of account before the authorities for one reason or the other. In the absence of books of account before the authorities the best judgment assessment was justified. So far as the question of not submitting form III "Ga" is concerned the Tribunal has declined to consider the other evidence produced by the applicant for establishing that the foodgrains worth Rs. 17,68,084 were tax paid purchases. While doing so the Tribunal had relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Govind Ram Tansukh Rai & Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1988] 71 STC 4 [App.] ; 1985 UPTC 1060.
3. I have heard Shri R.R. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel who represents the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant was not able to point out any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal upholding the rejection of the books of account of the applicant and also denying the exemption in respect of purchase of foodgrains in the absence of form III "Ga". It may be mentioned here that the decision of this Court in the case of Govind Ram Tansukh Rai [1988] 71 STC 4 [App] ; 1985 UPTC 1060, has been approved by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Prabhudayal Prem Narain [1988] 71 STC 1 ; AIR 1988 SC 1775. Thus the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant however, submitted that the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow, had issued a circular on January 15, 1986, a copy whereof has been filed as annexure 6 to the revision in which it has been directed that if a dealer furnishes evidence showing the deposit of tax on the goods in respect of which form III "Ga" has not been filed then in that event the assessing authority may after due verification remit the amount of tax.
6. The learned Standing Counsel is not disputing the issuance of the aforesaid circular by the Commissioner of Sales Tax.
7. The honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Indra Industries reported in [2001] 122 STC 100 ; 2000 UPTC 472 has laid down that the circular issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax is binding upon the tax authorities. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in the case of Raghu Nath Laxmi Narain Spices Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in 2000 UPTC 554. Thus while upholding the order of the Tribunal I direct the applicant to make an application before the assessing authority for claiming remission in pursuance of the circular dated January 15, 1986 in respect of the tax imposing on the purchase of foodgrains of Rs. 17,68,084. The assessing authority will decide the matter of remittance expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date. The applicant makes an application along with the certified copy of this order before him.
Subject to the aforesaid observation the revision is dismissed.