- (1.) This petition has been filed for quashing order dated May 2, 2006, annexure P4, passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, "the Tribunal") on appeal of the assessee.
(2.) The assessee is engaged in the business of resale of electric and electrical goods and is registered under the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, "the 1948 Act") as a dealer. The petitioner had surrendered rupees twenty lacs as income during the course of survey carried out by the income-tax department under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the 1961 Act"). The petitioner had surrendered stock of Rs. 15 lacs as reflected in the trading account. The petitioner filed its returns for the year 2002-03 under Section 10(3) of the 1948 Act. The sales tax department while framing assessment took into consideration that the petitioner had surrendered stock of Rs. 15 lacs during the course of survey carried out by the income-tax department and there was discrepancy in the trading account and the account books of the petitioner. The Assessing Authority accordingly held that Rs. 15 lacs reflected as purchases in the account were not reflected in the sales of the petitioner's firm. The Assessing Authority further held that in the trading/profit and loss account of the petitioner, the effect of suppressed purchases of Rs. 15 lacs was not reflected in the sales but the credit side was balanced by an entry of rupees twenty lacs as miscellaneous business income. According to the Assessing Authority this was deliberately done with a view to evade payment of sales tax. The Assessing Authority made addition of rupees twenty lacs in the gross turnover rejecting the returns filed and created an additional demand of Rs. 5,28,000 including penalty of Rs. 2,64,000. The appellate authority affirmed the said finding. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the matter ought to be re-examined by the Assessing Authority after giving opportunity to the assessee. It was observed that surrender of stocks before the income-tax authorities could not be made the sole basis for the assessment, as held by the honourable Supreme Court in Girdhari Lal Nannelal v. Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P., 1977 39 STC 30.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal had erred in remanding the case to the assessing officer to decide the same afresh in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the apex court after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.;