HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 167 of 2021 WITH SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 171 of 2021 SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 172 of 2021 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Shri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned ACSC for the opposite party. 2. These three revisions pertain to Entry Tax Act. 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) 3. Since the issues involved in these connected revisions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 167 of 2021 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these revisions. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 167 of 2021 4. 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. 5. The aforesaid revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2021 on the question of law nos. (i), (ii) and (iii). 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that only on the basis of best judgement assessment, entry tax was levied upon the revisionist treating the coal as if it has been imported by the revisionist from outside the State of U.P. He further submits that presumption against the revisionist has been drawn only on the basis of electricity consumption and accordingly, the suppressed sale has been determined. 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]. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that once under the UPVAT Act, if presumption of suppressed sale has not been accepted by this Court, there cannot be any question of presumption of suppressed purchase, which would, otherwise, give rise to liability of entry tax. He further submits that the matter may also be remanded in view of the judgement of the date passed by this Court in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 169/2021. 8. Learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. STRE No. 167 of 2021 2 10. The record shows that suppressed purchase of coal was assessed on the basis of the UP VAT Act. ONce this Court remanded back the VAT case for reconsideration, then under the Entry Tax Act purchases also need to have a new look for assessment. 11. 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. 12. For the said purpose, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in these revisions are hereby set aside. 13. The revisions are, accordingly, disposed of. 14. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority concerned for reconsideration of the issue of entry depending upon the order passed under the VAT Act 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. 167 of 2021 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad