HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 30 of 2022 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. List has been revised. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party. Heard Shri B.K. Pandey, learned ACSC for the revisionist. The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2017-18 under section 28(2) of the UP VAT Act. Since the instant revision is of the year 2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18, the same is decided at the admission stage itself. Learned ACSC submits that in year in dispute, the opposite party shown in its books of account that 2,22,087.60 kgs. of packed frozen meat was rotten and destroyed in the dumping yard. On 29.06.2021, the Assessing Authority assessed the concealed sale of frozen meat of Rs. 4,44,17,520/- and assessed the tax liability to be Rs. 77,73,066/-. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred appeal before the 1st appellate authority, who vide order dated 21.09.2021, dismissed the appeal. Against the order dated 21.09.2021, the opposite party has preferred second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 11.10.2021. Learned ACSC further submits that while framing of the assessment order, the Assessing Authority, after verification of books of account, found that the opposite party has disclosed that packed frozen meat of 2,22,087.60 kgs. were rotten and therefore, no sales to that extent was shown, which was Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Avinash Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Shiv Sagar Singh The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow .....Revisionist(s) S/S Al Junaid Foods Product Pvt. Ltd. .....Opposite Party(s) disbelieved as no cogent material was brought on record in support thereof. The expenditure for disposing of the same was only shown to be Rs. 35,900/-. He further submits that such a large quantity of meat alleged to be rotten cannot be disposed of without there being due intimation to the food and other relevant Departments. Learned ACSC further submits that specific finding of fact recorded by the Assessing Authority in its order has not been reversed and the benefit of the same has been allowed, which is bad in law. He further submits that the opposite party itself has admitted for disposing of such a huge quantity of rotten meat to the extent as above, for which, at least, three months' time will be required for disposing of the same. Once such a long period for disposing of the huge quantity of the alleged rotten meat, due requirement of the concerned Department was not taken, the impugned order cannot be sustained. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. The Tribunal, in a very cursory manner, has accepted the contention of the opposite party that the above 2,22,087.60 kgs. of frozen meat got rotten and there is no suppressed sale. The record further shows that the Tribunal in the impugned order has recorded for disposing of such a huge quantity of rotten frozen meat, Food Control Department and Nagar Nigam of the concerned area were required to be intimated and permission required, but in spite of the said fact, no material was brought on record either intimating or permission being granted for disposing of such a huge quantity of rotten meat, but still the Tribunal has accorded the benefit. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the opposite party, has accepted the contention of the opposite party that once the meat start rotting, the connected meat also start rotten, which required immediate removal and only on that premise, the explanation of the opposite party has been accepted, but the finding of fact recorded by the Assessing Authority, that for disposing of such a huge quantity of meat, corresponding expenditure has not been shown and only a labour charge of Rs. 35,900/- has been shown, has not been reversed. Once a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal also for disposal of such a huge quantity of rotten meat, permission and intimation is required, then in STRE No. 30 of 2022 2 absence thereof, benefit granted cannot legally be tenable. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same is hereby set aside. The revision succeeds and is allowed. The question of law is answered in favour of the revisionist and against the opposite party - assessee. September 4, 2025 Amit Mishra STRE No. 30 of 2022 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad