M/S JAI BHAWANI TRADERS GOLA LAKHIMPUR THRO.V.K.MAHESWARI V. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX U.P.LUCKNOW

STRE/64/2013

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Jai Bhawani Traders, who filed revisions against the orders of the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow, concerning sales tax assessments under the U.P. Value Added Tax, 2008. The revisions challenged the Tribunal's dismissal of the second appeal, which had upheld the assessment order that taxed the revisionist at a reduced amount after ITC claims. The revisionist argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the absence of 'C' forms and misinterpreted the sales records. However, the court found that these issues had been adequately addressed by the lower authorities and dismissed the revisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 737991 (HC-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sudarshan Silks & Sarees vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka - (2008) 12 SCC 458
• Laws Referred To: U.P. Value Added Tax, 2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: C S C
• Assessee Lawyers: N C MISHRA; ABHISHEK MISHRA; CHANDRA HAS MISHRA; RAMESH CHANDRA MISHRA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; ITC claim; Value Added Tax; Sales/Trade Tax Revision; Second Appeal Dismissed
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

"Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:24392 Court No. - 5 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 64 of 2013 Revisionist :- M/S Jai Bhawani Traders Gola Lakhimpur Thro.V.K.Maheswari Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- N.C.Mishra,Abhishek Mishra,Chandra Has Mishra,Ramesh Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Along with: Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 63 of 2013 Revisionist :- M/S Jai Bhawani Traders Gola Lakhimpur Thro.V.K.Maheswari Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- N.C.Mishra,Abhishek Mishra,Chandra Has Mishra,Ramesh Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, and Sri Sanjay Sareen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. There is consensus between the parties that the matter in issue in both the revisions is common, as such, both the revisions are being decided by a common order. For convenience, the facts of Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.64 of 2013 have been taken into consideration. 3. Despite an interim order having been granted by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2013 which was subsequently not extended vide order dated 25.01.2024 the revision has still not been admitted. 4. Instant revision has been filed challenging the order dated 14.12.2012, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the revision, passed by the learned Tribunal by which second appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that initially an assessment order dated 24.03.2011, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the revision, was passed by the competent authority under the provisions of Section 28 of the U.P. Value Added Tax, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2008') per which the revisionist was assessed to tax at the rate of Rs.68,87,500/- and after adjustment of ITC claim the amount was reduced to Rs.68,66,173/-. Being aggrieved, the revisionist filed first appeal, which was partly allowed by the appellate authority vide order dated 18.07.2011, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the revision, whereby the amount was reduced in Appeal No.679 of 2011 by Rs.33,55,898/-. 6. Still being aggrieved, the revisionist filed a second appeal before the learned Tribunal which has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 14.12.2012. Hence, the instant revision. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has raised primarily three grounds in order to challenge the impugned order namely (a) that the revisionist had all three copies of the bills available in his bill book to indicate that no form 'C' was ever issued, which has not been considered either by the authority or the learned Tribunal, (b) that the learned Tribunal has erroneously observed in the judgment dated 14.12.2012 that sale took place with respect to bill no.107 dated 01.01.2008 and bill no.121 dated 30.01.2008 of which all three copies are available in the bill book as per the list of sales produced before the Tax Assessing Authority, and (c) that no opportunity of hearing has been accorded to the revisionist at any stage by the authorities. 8. So far as the first ground is concerned namely that the revisionist was having three copies of the bills in his bill book which has not been appreciated by the competent authority, a perusal of the assessment order dated 24.03.2011 would indicate that the version of the revisionist has been considered by the assessing authority and he has observed that he himself has examined the bill book upon being produced by the revisionist but the bill book is not having the original bill contained in the bill book. Thus, the said ground is rejected. Incidentally, this finding of the bill book having been examined by the Authority has not been denied anywhere by the revisionist upon filing of either the first appeal or the second appeal. 9. So far as ground (b) is concerned namely that as per the revisionist all three copies of bill nos. 107 and 121 are contained in the bill book yet he had indicated the said sale in the list of sales, no denial to the said finding has been given by the revisionist while filing the instant revision of the said sales being indicated in the list of sales produced before the Assessing Authority. As such, the said ground is rejected. 10. So far as ground (c) is concerned that no opportunity of hearing has been accorded to the revisionist, the said ground is also misconceived considering that the assessment order dated 24.03.2011 has been passed after issuing notice to the revisionist and thereafter the revisionist had ample opportunity while filing the first and second appeal of rebutting the specific finding that had been given by the assessing authority which he himself failed to do. Moreover, the learned Tribunal is the final fact finding authority as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sudarshan Silks & Sarees vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka - (2008) 12 SCC 458. As such while considering the revision filed by the revisionist and even considering the grounds as raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist, no perversity or illegality emerges and consequently no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the instant revision as well as the connected revision is dismissed at the admission stage. Order Date :- 20.3.2024 A. Katiyar Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench "