Assessments under tax laws must be supported by material evidence, and procedural requirements such as issuing notices are essential for legality.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. Present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal Saharanpur Bench Saharapur in Second Appeal No. 212 of 2021 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 in proceeding under section 28 (2) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act.

3. The revision has been admitted on 22.3.2023 on the following questions of law:

"A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal as well as the authorities below were legally justified in rejecting the account books of the applicant and making best judgment assessment when no adverse material was available on record against the applicant?

B. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in rejecting the account books and making best judgment assessment without issuing of notice under Section 28(4) of the VAT Act?

C. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case after rejecting the claim of applicant with regard to purchase and return of raw meat and cattle worth Rs.2.5 Cr. the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority were justified in confirming the purchase of raw meat and cattle at Rs.6 Cr. because without there being a single adverse material available on the record?"

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Buffallo meat etc. and having a slaughter house to which registration under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act has been granted. He further submits that the revisionist is maintaining books of account as required under the Act. He further submits that raw material and cattle's to the tune of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- was returned but due to over sight the said figure could not be ratified in the next month. He further submits that during the passing of the assessment order the revisionist submitted its reply on each and every point raised in the show cause notice. He further submits that while framing the assessment order no adverse inference was drawn against the revisionist with regard to the notice issued to it but the Assessing Authority has illegally treated the goods return of sale and added the same in its taxable turn over. He further submits that the said fact is confirmed upto the Tribunal. He prays for allowing the revision.

5. Per contra, Sri Pandey, learned ACSC for the State supports the judgment and order.

6. It is admitted fact that the revisionist is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Buffalo meat and also running a slaughter house. During the assessment year in question certain meat and cattle were returned. It reveals from the record that no notice whatsoever was given to the revisionist before enhancing its taxable turn over. It is also revealed from the record that packing materials, samples and other raw materials purchased by the revisionist was verified from the books of account. Once the purchases made by the revisionist have been verified the enhancement of turn over to the tune of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- cannot be justified and goods returned have illegally been treated as suppressed sale and tax has been imposed. In absence of any cogent material on record the said enhancement cannot be justified. The record further reveals that no notice under Rule 46(1) of the U.P. Vat Rules, 2008 was issued to the revisionist before enhancing the turn over to the tune of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- and on the contrary neither purchases of raw materials nor purahses of packing materials have been di