IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that the Tribunal is the final authority on factual matters in tax assessments, and the High Court's review is limited to legal questions, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence in tax liability determinations.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Amar Mani Tripathi holding brief of Shri Pradeep Agrawal Advocate the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Sareen, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of the instant Revision filed under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act 1948, the revisionist has challenged validity of an order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench-III, Lucknow in Second Appeal No. 322 of 2004, which was filed by the petitioner against an order dated 28.01.2004 passed by the Joint Commissioner Appeal 4, Trade Tax, Sitapur. The petitioner has also challenged the decision of Second Appeal No. 241 of 2004 filed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow, which appeal has also been decided by the same order.

3. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has challenged orders passed in two separate second appeals. Even if both the second appeals were decided by a common judgment and order, since the order decides two separate appeals, two separate revisions ought to have been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute this preliminary objection.

5. Although there is force in the preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, since the revision was admitted by means of an order dated 22.01.2009, I do not think it would be proper to dismiss the revision of the preliminary objection and in the interest of justice, I proceed to decide the revision on its merits.

6. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a survey of the petitioner’s premises was conducted by the Special Investigation Branch of Trade Tax Department on 25.01.2003. On the basis of findings of the survey, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he did not submit a reply. After taking into consideration the uncontroverted findings of the survey, taxable sale of goods worth Rs.18,00,000/-was assessed, on which the petitioner’s tax liability of Rs.1,76,000/-was assessed by the Assessing Officer.

7. The First Appellate Authority did not interfere in the finding of the Assessing Authority regarding rejection of account books of the petitioner. Yet it substantially decreased the petitioner’s tax liability solely on the ground that at the time of survey made at about 4:30 PM on 25.01.2003, merely a sum of Rs.1,510/-was found in the cash box of the petitioner.

8. In second appeal, the department contended that the First Appellate Authority erred in assessing the petitioner’s tax liability only on the basis of cash amount found in the cash box of the petitioner’s premises whereas several documents have been recovered showing sales of goods worth huge amount, on credit. In such circumstances, tax liability assessed by the Assessing Authority could not be reduced merely on the basis of quantum of cash received in the petitioner’s premises.

9. Slips bearing Nos.36 to 50 found in the petitioner’s premises indicated sale of goods worth Rs.1,08,625/-by evasion of tax. Slips bearing Nos.15 to 34 indicated sale of goods worth Rs.35,708/-, including Cement worth Rs.15,442/-. Slips bearing Nos.36 to 50/-established sale of Cement and some other goods by evading tax. The source of purchase of Cement and Iron bars could not be established due to lack of documentary evidence and, therefore, the Assessing Authority assessed liability of tax treating the petitioner to be the manufacturer of the goods. The First Appellate Authority did not record any finding regarding lack of purchase of documents for Iron bars but regarding Cement, it held that Cement is manufactured in large factories and the same could not have been manufactured by the petitioner.

10. The Tribunal held that although a sum of merely Rs.1,510/-was found in the cash box at the time of survey made by the Special Investigation Branch at 04.30 PM on 25.01.2003 and the petitioner’s brother present at the time of