1960 (4) TMI 59 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of best of judgment assessments for specific quarters.
2. Competency of the assessing officer to add to the gross turnover beyond the suppressed amount.

Analysis:
1. The case involved two questions of law referred to the Orissa High Court by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The first issue was whether the assessing officer was justified in making best of judgment assessments for certain quarters. The petitioner had discrepancies in the accounts, leading to suspicion about the correctness of the records. The Sales Tax Officer found irregularities and proceeded to assess the petitioner to the best of his judgment under section 12(3) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act.

2. The power of Sales Tax Authorities to assess to the best of their judgment arises when the returns furnished by the assessee are not deemed correct and complete. In this case, the petitioner failed to explain a discrepancy of Rs. 10 in the accounts, leading to the Sales Tax Officer's decision to make a best of judgment assessment. The court held that the requirements of section 12(3) were met, as the petitioner was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the irregularity, justifying the assessing officer's decision.

3. The court emphasized that the assessing officer had followed the necessary procedures before resorting to a best of judgment assessment. Despite the possibility of condoning minor irregularities, the discretion lay with the assessing authority. Since the petitioner expressed inability to rectify the discrepancies or provide better returns, the assessing officer's jurisdiction to assess to the best of judgment was deemed valid.

4. The second question regarding the competency of the assessing officer to add more to the gross turnover beyond the suppressed amount was withdrawn by the petitioner's counsel during the proceedings. Consequently, the court did not address this issue, and the Tribunal's order on this matter stood.

5. In conclusion, the Orissa High Court answered the first question in the negative, affirming that the assessing officer was justified in making best of judgment assessments based on the irregularities in the petitioner's accounts. The reference was disposed of with costs, and the judgment was delivered by Narasimham R.L., C.J., and Das G.C., J.