HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 327 of 2017 CONNECTED WITH: SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 328 of 2017, SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 329 of 2017, SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 330 of 2017, SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 389 of 2017 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned ACSC for the opposite party. 2. Since the common issue is involved in all the aforementioned revisions, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is decided by a common order leading case being SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 327 of 2017. 3. The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.5.2017 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 in Second Appeal No. 225 of 2014. 4. The only question pressed by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that as to whether the Tribunal was justified in enhancing the selling rate of the goods as well as turn over without any material on record. On the said basis he submits that the assessing authority has disbelieved the disclosed turn over on the ground that the revisionist has suppressed the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Om Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. M/S Bhagwati Fuels Thru Its Prop. Gaya Prasad .....Revisionist(s) Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s) selling rate of the goods in question. He further submits that the issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 398 of 2013 (M/s D.K.Coal Depo vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax Lko) decided on 9.12. 2021and Mr. Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner Commercial Tax (2022 UPTC (Vol. 110)- 187). 5. Relying upon the aforementioned judgments he further submits that the assessing authority cannot compel the dealer to sell the goods in question at a particular price. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and the Court has perusal of the records. 7. The record shows that the Tribunal as well as the lower authorities, without any basis came to the conclusion that the dealer has sold the goods at lower price. If the assessing authority is not satisfied with the disclosed selling price of the dealer, then he is duty bound to determine the selling price after comparing the same from the current market value disclosed by other dealer for the relevant assessment years. But the authorities below have failed to do so, therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. In view of the above, since the issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments of this Court the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The revision is allowed. 9. The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. May 7, 2026 samz STRE No. 327 of 2017 2 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED AKHTARMOHAMMAD MEQDAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad