Decided on September 02,2003

Surya Agencies Appellant


- (1.) The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for short "the Act". The assessee is the revision-petitioner. State is the respondent. The assessment year is 1994-95. For the said assessment year the assessee filed return disclosing a taxable turnover of Rs. 2,99,031.63. There was no inspection of the business premises. However, the assessing authority got certain check-post declarations. It is on the basis of the said check-post declarations, the assessing authority proposed to reject the books of account and to estimate the turnover on best judgment basis. In reply to the pre-assessment notice, the assessee gave explanation with regard to the purchase bills obtained from the check-post. The assessing authority had accepted the explanation with regard to three bills. He, however, did not accept the explanation with regard to two bills, the total of which came to Rs. 9,610.21. This is with regard to bills 633 dated July 20, 1994 and 53 dated July 13, 1994. The assessing authority had estimated the turnover by making an addition of six times the suppression so found. This was confirmed in appeal, both by the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax as well as by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
(2.) Dr. K.B. Mohammed Kutty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the only reason for the rejection of the books of account and the estimation is the alleged check-post declarations. The learned Counsel submitted that out of the five purchase invoices, three have been explained to the satisfaction of the assessing authority, but the assessing authority did not accept the explanation with regard to two bills mentioned above. The counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in the judgment dated February 11, 2003 Reported at C.O. Varghese v. State of Kerala,2008 11 VST 149 (Ker) in T.R.C. No. 65 of 2003 wherein this Court in similar circumstances directed the Assessing Authority to add only the actual suppression found out from the check-post declarations.
(3.) We have heard the learned Government pleader also. He submitted that in the instant case the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the two purchase invoices, the total value of which comes to Rs. 9,610.21 and the assessing authority on the basis of such suppression had made only a reasonable addition of six times of such suppression. He has also submitted that both the appellate authorities has considered this question and affirmed the addition made by the assessing authority. He further submitted that the Tribunal as the final fact-finding authority found that the addition of six times the actual suppression made by the assessing authority is only reasonable and therefore there is no case for interference by this Court in this case.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.