Reserved on : 03.09.2026 Delivered on :15.09.2026 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 436 of 2017 S/S Nishant Traders …..Revisionist(s) Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow …..Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Aditya Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. With SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 437 of 2017 S/S Nishant Traders …..Revisionist(s) Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow …..Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Aditya Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. And 2 STRE No. - 436 of 2017 SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 438 of 2017 S/S Nishant Traders …..Revisionist(s) Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow …..Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Aditya Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. And SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 439 of 2017 S/S Nishant Traders …..Revisionist(s) Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow …..Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Aditya Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 3 STRE No. - 436 of 2017 1. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur for Assessment Year 2010-11. The present revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated 06.10.2017 on the following question of law: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal as well as authorities below were legally justified in not providing for cross-examination with the proprietor of M/s. Suraj Building Material, Waterganj, Basti, and at the same time, on the basis of the alleged entry in the account of third party, the account of the applicant has been rejected and best judgment assessment has been made.?” 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist-firm is a registered dealer engaged in the business of purchase and sale of cement and iron bars/steel bars (Sariya). On 25.03.2012, the business premises of another dealer, namely, M/s Suraj Building Material, Walterganj, Basti, was inspected, and one diary was seized, in which certain purchase entries with regard to cement and steel bars were found. In the said entries, the letters “NT” were written, and below the same, the name of Satya Narayan Jaiswal was mentioned. Therefore, it was presumed by the authority that “NT” stood for M/s Nishant Traders, as Satya Narayan Jaiswal is the uncle of the proprietor of M/s Nishant Traders. On the basis of the said presumption, a business relationship between the revisionist and M/s Suraj Building Material was inferred. He further submits that merely on the basis of the aforesaid survey, notice was issued to the revisionist. The revisionist requested for cross- examination, but without providing an opportunity for cross- examination, the assessment order was passed. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, an appeal was preferred, which was partly allowed. Against the said order, a cross-appeal was filed before the Tribunal; however, by the impugned order, all the appeals were dismissed. Hence, the present revision. 4 STRE No. - 436 of 2017 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that no survey was conducted at the business premises of the revisionist, rather the survey was conducted at the business premises of M/s Suraj Building Material, Walterganj, Basti. On the basis of the said survey, the seized diary was relied upon and an inference was drawn against the revisionist. However, despite the request for cross-examination, the orders have been passed without providing such opportunity. Learned counsel further submits that, at every stage, the revisionist requested for cross-examination, but neither the Assessing Authority nor the Appellate Authority nor the Tribunal summoned the persons concerned for cross-examination and proceeded to pass the orders. He further submits that the books of account of another dealer cannot be relied upon unless and until an opportunity to cross-examine the said dealer is afforded to the revisionist. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of M/s. Banshi Dhar Banke Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 2000 STD HC 56; M/s. Tulsidas Babu Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1999 UPTC 1273; S/s. Adarsh Wire Knitting Industries v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 2004 UPTC 287; and the judgment of this Court in M/s. Durga Agro Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, passed in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 1556 of 2007, decided on 21.10.2013. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned order. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 7. The record shows that the business premises of the revisionist-firm was never surveyed for the relevant assessment year. The survey was conducted at the premises of a third party, i.e., M/s Suraj Building Material, Walterganj, Basti, wherein a diary was seized in which “NT” was mentioned, and the name mentioned thereunder was Satya Narayan Jaiswal. On the basis of the said entry, an adverse inference has been drawn against the revisionist. The entry of the third-party dealer has been 5 STRE No. - 436 of 2017 relied upon without affording an opportunity of cross-examination to the revisionist. The record further shows that, at every stage, i.e., before the Assessing Authority, the First Appellate Authority, and the Tribunal, a specific prayer was made for cross-examination, but no due weightage was given to the said request. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has recorded the said fact, but has still failed to give due weightage to the same and to exercise the power under Rule 75 so as to ensure the presence of the third party, at whose business premises the alleged diary was seized. Once the revisionist was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the said third party, the entries contained in the books of account of another dealer could not have been relied upon against the revisionist. A similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in the cases of M/s. Banshi Dhar Banke Lal (supra), M/s. Tulsidas Babu Lal (supra), S/s. Adarsh Wire Knitting Industries (supra), and by this Court in M/s. Durga Agro Industries Ltd. (supra). 8. The impugned order cannot be sustained. The matter is remanded to the tribunal for affording an opportunity to revisionist to cross examine the person on whose statement/material were used against it, thereafter pass a fresh and reasoned order in accordance with law. 9. Consequently, the revisions are disposed off. (Piyush Agrawal,J.) September 15, 2026 A.N. Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad