2002 (7) TMI 776 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision against Trade Tax Tribunal order
2. Best judgment assessment for taxable turnover
3. Appeal outcomes before Deputy Commissioner and Trade Tax Tribunal
4. Non-maintenance of manufacturing account and turnover enhancement
5. Comparison of stock register and actual stock
6. Legal sustainability of turnover enhancement

Analysis:
The revision was filed against the Trade Tax Tribunal's order concerning the best judgment assessment of the taxable turnover for a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of sandalwood oil and perfumes. The Assistant Commissioner had rejected the company's accounts book and determined the total taxable turnover for the assessment year 1997-98 under the Central Sales Tax Act based on a survey, leading to a dispute. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the company's appeal, reducing the taxable turnover, which was further altered by the Trade Tax Tribunal, increasing it by Rs. 20,00,000. The Tribunal accepted the alleged difference in stock but enhanced the turnover based on the non-maintenance of the manufacturing account, a decision challenged in the revision.

The legal argument revolved around the non-maintenance of the manufacturing account under section 12(2) of the Act and its implications on the rejection of books of account or turnover enhancement. Citing precedent, it was contended that mere non-maintenance of the manufacturing account does not automatically warrant such actions. The company's counsel emphasized that the books of account and stock register were up to date, with no discrepancies found during the survey, supporting their case against turnover enhancement.

After considering the arguments, the Judge found that the Tribunal had favored the applicant, accepting their explanation regarding job work and acknowledging the availability of updated books of account and stock register during the survey. Relying on the legal precedent cited, the Judge concluded that the turnover enhancement lacked legal sustainability, setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing the acceptance of the turnover disclosed by the applicant. The Tribunal was instructed to issue an appropriate order promptly under section 11(8) of the Act within four months, thereby allowing the revision and addressing the related questions accordingly.