HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 169 of 2021 WITH SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 170 of 2021 SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 174 of 2021 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. Heard Shri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned ACSC for the opposite party. Since the issues involved in these connected revisions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order with the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Aloke Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Aloke Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Aloke Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : M/S M.M. Steels .....Revisionist(s) The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s) M/S M.M. Steels .....Revisionist(s) The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s) M/S M.M. Steels .....Revisionist(s) The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s) consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 169 of 2021 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these revisions. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 169 of 2021 The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.02.2021 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2014-15 under the UP VAT Act. The aforesaid revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2021 on the question of law nos. (C), (E) and (F). Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the basis for assessing the alleged suppressed sale is the consumption of electricity, which depends upon the load, consumption, manufacturing and other factors, which have not been considered by the authorities below. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in M/s Eco Cement Indian Limited Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others [Writ Tax No. 1070/2023, decided on 09.09.2025]. Learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed as the electricity consumption was found equal to the consumption during the manufacturing activities, which itself shows contrary stand taken by the revisionist. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. The record shows that suppressed sale was assessed on the basis of the consumption of electricity. Various submissions have been made to show that merely on the basis of electricity consumption alone, suppressed sale cannot be determined, which have not been considered by the authorities below as well as in the impugned order. In view of the facts & circumstances of the case as noted above, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The matters require reconsideration. STRE No. 169 of 2021 2 For the said purpose, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in these revisions are hereby set aside. The revisions are, accordingly, disposed of. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority concerned for reconsideration of the issue with regard to electricity consumption after adducing the materials produced by the revisionist, if any, and pass a reasoned speaking order expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. September 22, 2025 Amit Mishra STRE No. 169 of 2021 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad