1977 (7) TMI 72 - Tri - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment order reducing the assessment for the year 1973-74.
2. Allegation of purchase suppression and enhancement of additional tax demand.
3. Appeal against the reduction of enhancement to Rs. 40,000.
4. Discrepancy in purchase account for a tyre transaction.
5. Consideration of evidence and arguments regarding purchase suppression.
6. Determination of appropriate enhancement amount for the alleged suppression.

The appeal in this case challenged the order reducing the assessment for the year 1973-74, where the Assistant CST had initially enhanced the returned turnover by Rs. 83,000 due to alleged purchase suppression. The assessee, a registered dealer of motor parts, was found to have omitted a purchase of a tyre worth Rs. 251.45 from the purchase account, leading to discrepancies. The assessee provided inconsistent explanations for the omission, initially citing inadvertence and later claiming the transaction was on behalf of a third party. The Assistant CST accepted the charge of purchase suppression but reduced the enhancement to Rs. 40,000. In the subsequent appeal, the Tax Practitioner argued against the purchase suppression allegation, contending that the transaction involved a third party, and if any suppression existed, it should be limited to the value of the tyre. The Inspection Officer confirmed the purchase of the tyre but not its reflection in the accounts, leading to the conclusion that the assessee had indeed purchased the tyre but failed to record it. The forums upheld this finding, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the alternative explanation provided by the assessee.

Regarding the enhancement of the turnover, the Tribunal considered whether the Rs. 40,000 enhancement was justified given the absence of systematic suppression in the accounts apart from the single transaction in question. The assessee's offer to produce the third party involved for clarification was not acted upon by the Assessing Officer, indicating a potential avenue for substantiating the explanation. However, the Tribunal deemed remanding the case for further examination delatory, opting instead to limit the enhancement to the value of the suppressed purchase, i.e., Rs. 251.45. The Tribunal found the Tax Practitioner's argument compelling in light of the specific circumstances, leading to the decision to restrict the enhancement to the actual suppressed amount. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the enhancement was limited to Rs. 251.45, with instructions for the AO to recalculate the turnover and refund any excess tax collected.