1996 (1) TMI 416 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under section 44(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 for reference from the Board of Revenue on two questions.
2. Justification of best judgment assessment made by the assessing authority.
3. Arbitrariness and violation of natural justice in the orders of the assessing authority and Tribunal.
4. Proper maintenance of accounts by the assessee.
5. Rejection of application for reference by the Board of Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The application was filed under section 44(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, seeking reference from the Board of Revenue on two questions raised by the assessee. The questions pertained to the justification of the best judgment assessment made by the assessing authority under section 18(4)(d) of the Act and the alleged arbitrariness and violation of natural justice in the orders of the assessing authority and Tribunal.

2. The assessee, engaged in the business of purchase of timber logs and sale of sawn timber, was assessed for the period from November 1, 1980, to October 25, 1981. The Sales Tax Officer determined the gross turnover and taxable turnover, which the assessee challenged through appeal and revision. The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax held that the assessee did not maintain proper accounts, citing the ratio from a previous case. The Board of Revenue affirmed this decision.

3. The High Court noted that the questions raised were purely factual and did not involve any legal issues. It was observed that the assessee failed to keep proper accounts and could not satisfactorily explain the discrepancies. The Additional Commissioner's application of the precedent from the Krishna Saw Mills case was deemed appropriate.

4. The Court concluded that no legal questions were at play in the matter, as it primarily revolved around factual aspects such as the maintenance of accounts by the assessee. As a result, the application for reference was rejected, and the judgment was in favor of the Revenue authorities.

5. In summary, the High Court dismissed the application, emphasizing the lack of legal issues and the factual nature of the dispute regarding the proper maintenance of accounts by the assessee. The decision of the Board of Revenue to reject the reference application was upheld, and the judgment favored the Revenue authorities.