JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - revisionist and Shri Vishwjit, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 26 of 2023 relates to the Assessment Year 2016-17 under section 28(2) of the VAT Act, while Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 27 of 2023 relates to the Assessment Year 2016-17 under section 9(4) of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2007. Since the issue involved in these two revisions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order.

3. The present revisions have been filed against the judgement & order dated 04.11.2022 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Aligarh Division, Aligarh shifting the burden of proof upon the Department and partly allowing the appeals of the dealer, in which following questions of law have been framed:-

Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 26 of 2023

(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the amount of tax levied by the assessing authority when the rejection of account of books have been confirmed and illegally shifted the burden on the department?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the amount of tax of Rs. 72,50,000/-?

Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 27 of 2023

(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the amount of tax levied by the assessing authority when the rejection of account of books have been confirmed and illegally shifted the burden on the department?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the amount of tax of Rs. 12,50,000/- as well as Rs. 25,000/- which was confirmed by the 1st Appellate Authority?

4. The aforesaid questions of law have been admitted by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2023.

5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the revisionist submits that the opposite party/dealer is a limited company and engaged in the business of purchase of wheat and manufacture of atta, maida & suji. On 19.08.2016, the business premises of the opposite party was surveyed by the Surveying Authority, in which the books of account of the opposite party were found to be incomplete and various transactions were found to be not properly recorded in the books of account, on the basis of which best judgement assessment was made after rejecting the books of account. The seized documents could not be explained properly and the purchases & sales were made beyond the record. The opposite party claimed the purchases to be made outside the State of U.P. and supporting documents were submitted. But on verification of the registration numbers of the vehicles, it was found that some of the vehicle numbers were not traceable and some of them were found to be of auto-rickshaw, two-wheeler, passenger vehicles, etc. On the said basis, enhancement of turnover was made treating the same being purchased within the State of U.P., since the goods were treated to be purchased from unregistered dealer. Moreover, only tax was imposed upon the HDEP bags. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, the opposite party preferred appeal before the 1st appellate authority, who, by the order dated 23.12.2021, partly allowed the appe