Information received from a third party cannot be the sole basis for rejecting a taxpayer's account books and making a best judgment assessment unless the third party is cross-examined or the information is otherwise rebutted.

1. Heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned ACSC for the State - respondents.

2. This is a revision petition filed for the assessment year 2016-17 under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order dated February 22, 2024 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Moradabad in Second Appeal No. 265/2024 for the assessment year 2016-17.

3. The above-noted revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2024 on the following question 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 the best judgment assessment when no adverse material was available on record against the applicant?

C. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in rejecting the account books and making best judgment assessment when the trial is pending in relation the same facts and circumstances before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Rampur in Case No.291 of 2020?

D. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the rejection of account books and best judgment assessment in violation of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Durga Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. reported in (2013) 23 VLJ 212 ?"

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is engaged in the business of fuel wood, inlogs, inbillets, intwigs, etc. as well as packing materials. He further submits that the present revision relates to the assessment year 2016-17. He further submits that the assessing authority, while passing the assessment order dated 29.02.2020, has rejected the books of account of the revision and enhanced the turnover as well as levied tax on the basis of the information received that S.S. Enterprises, Aligarh, having Tin No. 09225216119 has shown certain purchases from the revisionist and on the said premise, the assessing authority proceeded to pass the order against the revisionist. He further submits that neither any material was brought on record to justify the said sales made by the revisionist, nor the Proprietor of the M/s SS Enterprises was cross-examined and only on the basis of the information received from the third party, the books of account cannot be rejected. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in M/s Durga Agro Industries Limited Vs. CTT [STRE No. 1556/2007, decided on 21.10.2013]. He further submits that the matter travelled upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide impugned order, has dismissed the appeal of the revisionist.

5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that since the sales have been brought on record made by the revisionist through S.S. Enterprises, therefore, the impugned order is justified.

6. Rebutting the said submission, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that not only the M/s S.S. Enterprises was ever put to cross-examination, but also FIR and charge sheet have also been filed showing criminal case registered against the Proprietor of M/s S.S. Enterprises, but the same has not been considered.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.

8. The record shows that the assessing authority has enhanced th