B SATYANARAYANA MURTHY AND SONS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two T.R.Cs. could be disposed of by a common judgment as they involve common point and also decided by a common order. The assessee in T.R.C. No. 27 of 1981 is a dealer in general goods whereas the assessee in T.R.C. No. 39 of 1981 is a dealer in automobile parts.

(2.) Returns were filed by the petitioner-assessees giving the total turnover, the exemptions claimed and the net turnover. At the time of determination, they were put on notice and after scrutiny of the account books certain exemptions claimed were disallowed and also after taking into reckoning the spot inspection reports finding certain variations, some amounts were added to the turnovers. The petitioners also disclosed voluntarily, in the case of T.R.C. No. 39 of 1981 Rs. 25,000 worth of stock and in the case of T.R.C. No. 27 of 1981 Rs. 35,000 worth of stock. Hence, notices were given to show cause as to why they should not be subjected to best judgment assessments. Replies to the notices were furnished and thereafter the Commercial Tax Officer turning down the claims and objections raised by the petitioners, assessed them by adding the entire value of the stocks that were disclosed by the petitioners and determined the tax thereon. It is that addition of the value that is challenged in these revisions.

(3.) The contention of Sri Ramakrishnaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that these values which were disclosed pertain to the voluntary disclosure of income under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 (Act No. 8 of 1976), which received the assent of the President on 2 5/01/1976, making effective from 8/10/1975, land this was done by crediting the capital account and simultaneously debiting the goods account and therefore in the absence of any material to show that those goods were actually disposed off during the assessment year, namely, 1975-76, the same cannot be added to the total turnover at all as they must be exempted. The counter contentions for the Revenue were that goods worth Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 35,000 respectively were actually found part of the stock which was suppressed and the disclosure was made at the time when the inspection was done and therefore best judgment assessment was made adding this value to the total turnover of the dealer.