SHA GANESHMAL BABULAL Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Girija Jagannath, Member (A) -
(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad Appeal No. 24/92 -93, dt. 2.4.1993 upholding the order of the D.C.T.O., General Bazar Circle, Secunderabad, in proceedings No. GI No. 27259/87 -88, dt. 31.3.1992 in respect of turnover of Rs. 78,000/ -. The appellant is a dealer in grains and toiletries and filed monthly returns. The C.T.O. (Intelligence), Secunderabad Division noticed a way bill dated 13.11.1987 covering the sale of cloves for Rs. 65,000/ - by one Saijal Enterprises, Bombay to the appellant. This was not accounted for in the books of appellant. The D.C.T.O., estimated the unaccounted sales of cloves at Rs. 78,000/ - and assessed the same. On appeal, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner refused to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. Hence the present appeal has been filed before us.
(2.) THE point to be considered is, whether the disputed turnover of Rs. 78,000/ - covered by the impugned way bill, relating to cloves is not liable to tax in the hands of the appellant, under the A.P.G.S.T. Act. It is seen that the appellant did not respond to several notices issued by the assessing Officer owing to illness and death of his father. When the D.C.T.O., issued a show cause notice on best judgment basis, the appellant sought for time, and later on produced the books. Apart from the above proceedings, it so happened that the C.T.O. (Intelligence), Secunderabad Division noticed that way -bill No. 395 dated 13.11.1987 for Rs. 65,000/ - covering 18 bags of cloves was received from Sangareddy Check Post relating to purchase of Cloves from Saijal Enterprises, Bombay, which was not accounted in the books. The assessing order states that the assessee denied the transaction, but since the appellant's name was clearly noted in the way bill along with the registration number, there was no alternative, but to treat Rs. 65,000/ - as unaccounted purchase by the assessee and estimate the sale at Rs. 78,000/ -.
(3.) ON appeal, the appellant represented that Saijal Enterprises, Bombay, never dealt with cloves, being only a dealer in grains from whom the appellant had purchased 18 bags of green peas vide way bill No. 210 dated 13.11.1987. It had never purchased cloves from the said party and was not at all responsible for the impugned way -bill for cloves of the same number and date as the one covering green peas. The A.D.C., was not convinced and refused to interfere with the D.C.T.O's. order.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.