Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 45405 (ALL)

M/S AWASTHI FURNITURE v. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX

STRE/716/2011 · 2025-09-14

Piyush Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 716 of 2011 WITH SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 717 of 2011 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Since 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/Tax Revision No. 716 of 2011 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these revisions. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 716 of 2011. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 30.03.2011 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur Bench-2, Kanpur in Second Appeal No. 338 of 2005 (Assessment Year 2001-02). Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Praveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : , Praveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. M/S Awasthi Furniture .....Revisionist(s) Commissioner Of Commercial Tax .....Opposite Party(s) M/S Awasthi Furniture .....Revisionist(s) Commissioner Of Commercial Tax .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is engaged in the business of execution of job work of iron, steel, wood and repairing work of agricultural instruments. The firm has been closed down in the year 2005 and the proprietor is now indulged in agriculture to make his ends meet. The revisionist firm was never registered with Trade Tax Department as no purchase and sale activity was ever undertaken by the revisionist. On 02.02.2001 a survey was conducted at the business premises of the revisionist. The weighment of shop was made, which was challenged to the Tribunal but in vain. He further submits that no survey was ever conducted at work place of revisionist or in the presence of the parties. He further submits that as directed by this Court, survey report has been produced, which clearly shows that two lines have been added just above signature for refusal of the revisionist to sign on survey report. Therefore, he submits that no action can be taken on the basis of alleged survey report. He further submits that two assessment orders have been passed and thereafter for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, the revisionist has been admitted to be job worker and no liability was added. He further prayers for allowing the present revision. Per contra, learned Standing supports the impugned order and submits that a survey was conducted and material was found, which indicates that revisionist was engaged in manufacturing of iron items and wooden furniture and therefore, the proceedings have been rightly initiated against it. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the court has perused the record. The record shows that revisionist was engaged in manufacturing of iron items and wooden furnitures, the said findings have been recorded only on the basis of survey conducted at the business premises of the petitioner to which the revisionist has always disputed the same. Up to this Court and on the direction of this Court an affidavit was filed bringing on record a survey report, copy of which has been filed at page-19 of the instant affidavit. On perusal of the survey report indicates that after signature two lines have been added of which handwriting is different from the above handwriting, which clearly indicates that just to accommodate these lines a small word STRE No. 716 of 2011 2 has been used about survey being conducted in the presence of the revisionist at his business premises. The proceedings have been initiated only on the basis of survey report, cannot be relied on. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed in these revisions cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby set-aside. These revisions succeed and are allowed. September 15, 2025 Monika STRE No. 716 of 2011 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad