Reserved

Court No. - 1

Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 221 of 2013

Revisionist :- M/S Cargill India Pvt. Ltd.

Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax

Counsel for Revisionist :- Aditya Pandey,Bipin Kumar Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

1.

Heard Sri B. K. Pandey for the revisionist and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned

Standing Counsel for opposite party.

2.

The present revision has been filed against the order dated 9.1.2013

passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad in Second Appeal No. 232 of

2010 (Assessment Year 2005-06) under UP Trade Tax Act.

3.

By the order dated 8.3.2013, the present revision has been admitted on

question nos. ‘B and C’ only, which are quoted below:-

“B. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the law laid

down by this Hon’ble Court in various cases that where the turnover shown in

the account books is higher than too turnover disclosed in the return the

account books of the applicant can be rejected?

C. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax

Tribunal, Ghaziabad as well as authorities below were justified in disallowing

the claim of damage which is less than 1%, inasmuch as the same has been

allowed by the assessing authority himself in the assessment year 2008-09?”

4.

Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is multi-national company

engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of vegetable oil, refined oil

and ghee. The revisionist has its own manufacturing unit at Gujrat and having

its branches at other States. In the normal course of business the goods are

being sent as stock transfer to its branches. During the assessment year 2005-

06, being the first year of business, stock transfer were made and the assessee

claiming the transit loss of edible oil of 91021 litres, which was partly allowed

and confirmed by the Tribunal. The second point was raised that the price of

edible oil as shown, has been less than the prevailing market rate and therefore

on the basis of which account books were rejected and best judgement

2

assessment was made which was confirmed by the Tribunal. Hence the present

revision.

5.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the assessment year in

question was the first year of business and after manufacturing of edible oil at

its unit in Gujrat, the same was made as stock transfer and the goods, so

received, were firstly entered into the aamad register and thereafter mentioning

the actual weight / quantity of goods, dispatched from outside of the State of

UP and thereafter in the stock register actual weight / quantity, which were

received at the godown, it was mentioned as and when the difference appears,

believing that the goods were lost in the transit due to leakage and damage in

transit. He further submits that since the nature of business is as such it cannot

be said that there would not be any damage in transit or leakage of oil. It is

common in the nature of trade the applicant. He further submits that the transit

loss has also been accepted by the assessing authority in the subsequent years.

He further submits that so far as the allegations of under valuation of sale of

product are concerned, the authorities were not correct as it was admitted fact

that the disputed assessment year was the first year of the business of the

revisionist and to establish itself in the market, the competitive rates were

given. Otherwise also the authorities have not brought any material on record

to show otherwise. He further submits that so far as the shortage of maze was

concerned, the main reason behind it, was that after some time, it dries and

therefore the weight was less than mentioned in the stock. Moreover, the said

issue does not affect its sale and prays for allowing the revision.

6.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the order passed by the

authorities below and submits that the dealer has failed to bring on record any

justified