2009 (5) TMI 890 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether authorities below are right in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner has purchased copra from APMC yard, Gubbi and suppressed the same while selling it? Whether the Tribunal are right in accepting the purchase receipts of copra without verifying the signature of the petitioner and without supplying those materials to the petitioner? Held that - Having regard to the facts and conduct of the assessee in not choosing to file objections despite service of proposition notice and not filing no objections and producing any documents, the assessing officer considered and passed the best judgment assessment order and that cannot be said to be irrational or illegal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing authority has exercised discretionary power and quantified the amount of suppressed turnover to ₹ 24,33,750 and the same has been confirmed by the KAT and therefore, the same cannot be termed as erroneous and in our view, none of the question raised would arise for our consideration in this case. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing petition
2. Sales tax revision petition against KAT order
3. Suppression of turnover and best judgment assessment

Delay in filing petition:
The court acknowledged a delay of 40 days in filing the petition and considered the reasons provided in the affidavit for condonation of delay. The delay was condoned, and the application was allowed.

Sales tax revision petition against KAT order:
The petition challenged the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) dated April 29, 2008, which confirmed the assessing authority's order regarding the purchase of copra and alleged suppression of sales. The questions of law raised included the purchase of copra, acceptance of purchase receipts, taxability of suppressed sales, and the legality of estimating and levying tax on suppressed sales.

Suppression of turnover and best judgment assessment:
The petitioner contended that the assessment order adding a specific amount to the total turnover was unsupported by valid reasons, leading to a substantial question of law. The assessing authority's decision was based on a report indicating turnover suppression, which the petitioner argued was incorrect. The appellate authority upheld the assessing authority's decision, relying on APMC yard records. The Additional Government Advocate defended the KAT's order, citing legal grounds and the Supreme Court's guidance on best judgment assessment orders.

The court examined the contentions of both parties and found that the substantial questions of law framed in the petition did not warrant consideration. It was established that the assessee had indeed purchased copra and suppressed turnover, leading to the best judgment assessment. The court noted the lack of objections or relevant documents from the assessee, which resulted in the assessing authority's decision to multiply the suppressed turnover by three. The court deemed the assessing authority's exercise of discretionary power and quantification of suppressed turnover as valid, ultimately agreeing with the KAT's order. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.