Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the assessee acted in respect of the estimated purchase turnover of Rs.
There were two cross revisions by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and by the assessee, both of which were allowed by the Additional Judge Revisions , Sales Tax, Meerut who by his order dated February 10, 1970 while negativing the plea of the assessee that he was number a dealer, however, felt that on the material on record, the taxable turnover of the assessee companyld number reasonably be determined at Rs.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgement and Order dated 27 10 1972 of the Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Ref.
The two questions referred were as follows Whether there is numbermaterial in support of best judgment assessment ?
The statement of the case sets out the details of the various surveys made and the nature of the deficiencies found.
25,450.
5,30,000 and the tax payable thereon at Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
7,500.
On appeal the Assistant Commissioner Judicial , Sales Tax, Muzaffarnagar by his order dated August 11, 1969 reduced the taxable turnover of purchases by Rs.
717 of 1973.
The High Court treating the question referred to be a companyposite one, embarked upon an enquiry as to whether the Sales Tax Authorities were justified in rejecting the account books and in making the best judgment assessment under s. 7 3 .
The reference arose out of assessment for the assessment year 1967 68 of Messrs Bishamber Singh Layaq Ram which carries on business in jaggery, amchur, khandsari etc.
From this decision the appellant, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, has appealed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated October 27, 1972 which was given upon a reference of certain questions of law made to the High Court by the Additional Judge Revisions , Sales Tax, Meerut in companypliance with its directions under sub s. 4 of s. 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 calling for a statement of the case.
857/71.
It has referred to the four surveys carried out on August 11, 1967, December 13, 1967, January 7, 1968 and March 8, 1968.
at Shahpur in the district of Muzaffarnagar, and is registered as a dealer under s. 8 A of the Act hereinafter referred to as the assessee .
The Commissioner of Sales Tax submitted that the first question should be answered in the negative and the second in the affirmative.
on its own account and as kuccha arhatiya in jaggery, foodgrains etc.
The High Court decided in favour of the assessee and against the Commissioner, holding that the submission of the assessee was right and answered both the questions to the companytrary.
Markandeya, for the Appellants.
P. Verma, for the Respondent.
The material facts may be stated as follows During the assessment year in question, the Sales Tax Officer, Muzaffarnagar by his order dated December 27, 1968 rejected the account books of the assessee on the basis of some discrepancies found during the four surveys carried out at his shop and made a best judgment assessment under sub s. 3 of s. 7 of the Act, determining the taxable turnover of purchases effected by it as a kutcha arhatiya at Rs.
1,50,000 and the tax by Rs.
Judge Revisions in stating the case mentioned that the assessee had companytended before him that his account books had been wrongly rejected.
3,80,000 as a dealer so as to be liable to purchase tax ?
