2019 (9) TMI 574 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Assessment of Sales Tax - estimation of Turnover - interstate sale - HELD THAT - Merely because at the later stage, in appeal, the assessee sought certain information and also sought cross examination of the purchaser, it would not introduce any defect in the reasoning adopted by the first appeal authority. However, with respect to the quantification of the amount of undisclosed turnover, it does appear that the first appeal authority had taken note of the disclosed turnover as also the undisclosed turnover pertaining to Bill No.113 and estimated the total turnover almost twice of that value being ₹ 20,00,000/-. This being a case of central sales, in absence of any material and in absence of any reason being offered by the Tribunal, it appears, the Tribunal has clearly erred in enhancing the estimation made to ₹ 30,00,000/-. The order of the Tribunal dated 24.01.2008 is set aside and the order passed by the first appeal authority is restored - Revision allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act
2. Burden of proof on the Department in central sales assessment
3. Justification of enhancement by the Tribunal
4. Material evidence for enhancement of turnover
5. Confrontation with disputed bill and burden of proof
6. Estimation of undisclosed turnover
7. Time lapse in the legal proceedings

Analysis:
1. The revisionist, an assessee engaged in trading hides and skins, challenged the Commercial Tax Tribunal's order estimating the central sales turnover at ?30,00,000 for the assessment year 2000-01. The initial turnover disclosed was ?3,02,400, but the Assessing Officer raised it to ?40,00,000 due to an interstate sale transaction. The first appeal authority reduced the estimate to ?20,00,000, leading to appeals by both the assessee and the revenue before the Tribunal.

2. The key legal issue raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering that the burden of proving central sales of raw leather lay with the Department. The enhancement made by the Tribunal was also questioned for lacking a basis in material evidence.

3. The assessee argued that the Tribunal's estimation was unfounded as it was not supported by any material and no rejection of the first appeal authority's estimate was provided. Conversely, the revenue contended that the existence of Bill No. 113 provided sufficient material to justify the Tribunal's decision.

4. The Court found that the disputed Bill No. 113 was attributable to the assessee, who did not contest its authenticity or seek expert opinion during reassessment. The burden of proof shifted to the assessee upon confrontation with the bill, as per legal precedent.

5. While the burden on the revenue was deemed discharged, the Tribunal's increase of the turnover estimate to ?30,00,000 was considered erroneous due to lack of material and reasoning. The Court noted the extended time since the assessment year and the subsequent changes in tax legislation, leading to the restoration of the first appeal authority's order.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the first appeal authority's decision was reinstated. The legal questions raised were answered in favor of the revenue on burden of proof and in favor of the assessee on the lack of material for enhancement. The revision was partly allowed due to these findings.