Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73342 Court No. - 10 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 368 of 2022 Revisionist :- M/S Suruchi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party :- Commissioner, Commercial Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- Arjit Gupta,Manish Gupta,Naveen Chandra Gupta With Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 369 of 2022 Revisionist :- M/S Suruchi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party :- Commissioner, Commercial Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- Arjit Gupta,Manish Gupta,Naveen Chandra Gupta And Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 370 of 2022 Revisionist :- M/S Suruchi Foods. Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- Arjit Gupta,Manish Gupta,Naveen Chandra Gupta Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard Sri Arjit Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. With the consent of parties, since the similar issues are involved in aforesaid revisions, the same are being decided together by this common order. 3. For convenience, the facts of the STRE No.368 of 2022, is being delineated here-in-below: 4. By means of instant revision, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-II, Agra passed in Second Appeal Nos.296, 297 & 298 of 2018 for the F.Y. 2012-13, under Sections 28 (2) (ii) State Tax, 9(2) Central Tax & 9 (4) Entry Tax. 5. The instant revision has been admitted vide order dated 04.01.2023, which reads as under: "In Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 3 of 2022 The amendment application is allowed. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to carry out the necessary amendment, during the course of the day. In Re: Revision Admit on the following question of law:- "III. Whether, the Commercial Tax Tribunal has committed an error of law by way of not considering and ignoring the explanation provided by the applicant/revisionist which is having material bearing on the case. IV. Whether, the Commercial Tax Tribunal has committed an error of law by way of ignoring and not considering the evidence on record." Subject to deposit of 50% of the disputed amount of tax within a period of three weeks from today and furnishing security for the balance 50% amount other than cash and bank guarantee, the recovery of disputed amount of tax shall remain stayed. Any amount already deposited be adjusted against deposit to be made under this order." 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, which deals in manufacturing of Diesel Oil/Foodgrain including paddy, Rice, Wheat/Pulses (both whole and split)/Samanvit Bal Vikash Yojana (ICDS) ke antargat Sanchalit Anganwadi Kendron ko Apurti Kiye Jane Wale Khadya Padartha/Sugar as defined in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956/Vanaspati (Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil/Wheat bran and deo cake but excluding oil cake, rice polish, rice bran and rice hush). The business premises of the revisionist was surveyed on 28.09.2012 wherein discriminatory materials were found in the shape of 6 exhibits and 113 loose papers to which a notice was issued to the revisionist under Section 45 (10 ) of the U.P. Vat Act to which the revisionist submitted reply/objection along with material evidence and documents before the Surveying Authority. Thereafter, the regular assessment proceedings were initiated and a show cause notice was issued to the revisionist to which a proper reply was submitted, but not being satisfied with the same, on the basis of discriminatory materials found at the time of survey, after rejecting the books of accounts, best assessment was made, against which an appeal was filed, which was partly allowed, fixing four times enhancement. Feeling aggrieved by the appellate order by the first appellate authority, second appeal was filed, which was also partly allowed by the impugned order by reducing 2% enhancement. Hence, the present revision. 7. He further submits that pursuant to the show cause notice issued pursuant to the assessment, a detailed reply was submitted, however, instead of verifying the same, the assessment order dated 22.09.2017 was passed. Against the said order, first appeal was filed, which has been partly allowed vide order dated 30.06.2018. Further, in the Tribunal also, the appeal filed by the revisionist has been partly allowed vide order dated 23.09.2022. 8. Counsel for the revisionist further submits that since the record and evidence in support thereof was available at every stage, but none of the authorities has considered the same and confirmed best judgment assessment order, which is bad. He further submits that along with the written argument, material evidence was brought on record, which, the tribunal being the last courts of facts and law, ought to have been considered it, however, has failed to consider the same, which is bad and is liable to be set aside to that extent. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned order and submits that neither the materials which were filed before the assessing authority or at the appellate stage, have been unconsidered nor before this Court in the revision, no such specific point has been raised, only a general argument has been raised that the materials available on record have not been considered. 10. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record. 11. Sri Gupta vehemently argued that materials available on record have not been considered at any stage which vitiate the impugned orders. However, at the first blink, his argument appeared to be very attractive, but on close scrutiny of the grounds taken in the appeals filed before the first appellate authority and before the tribunal, no such specific grounds have been taken by the revisionist that the material (a, b, c, ........) was placed and pressed, and the same has not been considered. 12. On a pointed query put to the counsel for the revisionist as to where any ground has been taken in the grounds so taken in the grounds of appeals filed before the authorities below, he could not show any such ground, rather he that material evidence and documents have not been considered. Even before this Court, no such pleadings have been raised in the present revision that in spite of specific pleadings being made, pressed or argued, the same has not been considered, rather he tried to refer his written argument so submitted before the tribunal. 13. The argument raised by the counsel for the revisionist can be accepted, but on the contrary, the record shows that the first appellate authority party allowed the appeal, which will go against the interest of the revisionist. Once the argument of counsel for the revisionist is accepted that the orders have been passed without considering the material available on record, since the Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the order impugned, this Court refrain itself for going into it, on the basis of argument raised by the counsel for the revisionist. 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances as stated, the impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the aforesaid revision petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. 16. The questions of law framed in the aforesaid revisions are answered against the revisionist and in favor of the Revenue. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Pravesh Mishra Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad