HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 67 of 2018 M/s Gorakhnath Food Private Limited …..Revisionist(s) Versus Commissioner of Trade/Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow …..Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Krishna Agarawal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. AND SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 66 of 2018 M/s Gorakhnath Food Private Limited …..Revisionist(s) Versus Commissioner of Trade/Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow …..Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Krishna Agarawal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Mr. Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned ACSC for the Sate-respondents. 2. Since common substantial questions of law are involved in both the revisions, both revisions are decided together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2 STRE No. - 67 of 2018 3. For narration of facts, the Revision No.67 of 2018 is being taken first. 4. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 16.11.2017 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur in Second Appeal No.206 of 2006 for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. 5. Following substantial questions of law are involved in the present revision: "(I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in estimating the turnover merely on the basis of consumption of electricity without rejection of books of account and in absence of any material to show suppressed purchase or sale ? (II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the enhancement in packing material without any martial on record and thus the order is perverse ? (III) Whether the turnover confirmed by the Tribunal is justified and not highly excessive ?" 6. Learned counsel the revisionist submits that the revisionist is engaged in business of manufacture and sale of Aata, Maida and Chokar etc. The revisionist disclosed the turnover, which has been enhanced whole framing the assessment order only on the basis of higher electric consumption. He submits that merely consumption is higher, the enhancement cannot be made. Against the assessment order, first appeal was filed, which was partly allowed against which the second appeal was filed which has been dismissed. He submits that merely for higher consumption as alleged by the assessing authority, the enhancement cannot be made. 7. Reverting to the said submission, learned counsel for the State submits that if a higher consumption is found, the suppression of production as well as sale is made out. In support of his submission, he has relied upon 3 STRE No. - 67 of 2018 the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Melton India vs. The Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. decided on 31.01.2007. 8. After hearing the parties, the Court perused the record. 9. The record shows that authorities have disbelieved the contention of the revisionist on the ground of higher consumption of electricity. The issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Melton India (supra), wherein the Court have held that higher consumption the books of account can be rejected as reasonable interference for prima facie suppression of production as sale are made out. 10. No ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. Question of law is answered accordingly in favour of the respondent and against the revisionist. September 29, 2026 Ajeet (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad