Skip to content


Mohammad Hanif Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number S.T.R. No. 38 of 1985
Judge
Reported in[1986]61STC207(All)
AppellantMohammad Hanif
RespondentCommissioner of Sales Tax
Appellant Advocate Matloob Ahmad, Adv.
Respondent Advocate The Standing Counsel
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - 1. this revision has been preferred by the assessee against the judgment dated 17th october, 1984, passed by the sales tax tribunal, aligarh, relating to the assessment year 1977-78. 2. the disclosed turnover of the assessee was rejected by the assessing authority and best judgment assessment was passed. first appeal filed by the assessee before the assistant commissioner (judicial) failed......inasmuch as on the purchases made by him the tax had already been paid. he contended that the mere fact that no form iii was issued could not give rise to presumption against the assessee. the tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee did not furnish any proof regarding the payment of tax on the purchases made by him. it may be that the mere fact that it did not produce any form iii was not enough to raise a presumption against the assessee but it was the duty of the assessee to have produced the materials and details about the purchases made by him. that having not been done by the assessee, the tribunal was wholly justified in imposing the tax on the assessee.4. no other point has been pressed in this case.5. in the result, the revision fails and is accordingly.....
Judgment:

Anshuman Singh, J.

1. This revision has been preferred by the assessee against the judgment dated 17th October, 1984, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Aligarh, relating to the assessment year 1977-78.

2. The disclosed turnover of the assessee was rejected by the assessing authority and best judgment assessment was passed. First appeal filed by the assessee before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) failed. The assessee feeling further dissatisfied preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal and that too was dismissed. The assessee feeling further dissatisfied has come to this Court in the instant revision.

3. The learned counsel for the assessee has not been able to challenge the findings regarding the rejection of the books of account and has also not been able to point out anything in the fixation of turnover. However, he argued that the imposition of tax was not justified on the assessee inasmuch as on the purchases made by him the tax had already been paid. He contended that the mere fact that no form III was issued could not give rise to presumption against the assessee. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee did not furnish any proof regarding the payment of tax on the purchases made by him. It may be that the mere fact that it did not produce any form III was not enough to raise a presumption against the assessee but it was the duty of the assessee to have produced the materials and details about the purchases made by him. That having not been done by the assessee, the Tribunal was wholly justified in imposing the tax on the assessee.

4. No other point has been pressed in this case.

5. In the result, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //