9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (2) TMI 506 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Interference with estimate made by assessing authority on turnover of jaggery under section 19B of the Act. Detailed Analysis: The case involved a tax revision petition filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax against the order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The dispute revolved around the assessment of turnover for a jaggery dealer for the year 1988-89. The assessing authority estimated the taxable turnover higher than the one declared by the assessee, alleging undervaluation to evade taxes. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal had differing views on the matter, leading to the revision petition. The key question before the court was whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the estimate made by the assessing authority under section 19B of the Act. The department argued that the assessing authority had the power to estimate the value of goods based on market prices if undervaluation was suspected. They contended that the dealer failed to prove otherwise and that comparison with other dealers' prices supported the assessment. However, the dealer's counsel argued that without evidence of actual collections exceeding declared amounts, the estimation under section 19B was not valid. The court considered previous judgments, including one where it was held that the Revenue must prove actual collections exceeding declared amounts to sustain assessments under section 19B. The court emphasized the necessity of such a finding to justify estimations based on market rates. It was noted that the Tribunal had correctly applied these principles and directed the assessing authority to accept the declared values in the accounts. Ultimately, the court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, finding it in line with established principles. The revision petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The judgment highlighted the importance of factual evidence supporting estimations under section 19B and upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the lack of such evidence in the case.
|
