Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + SC Income Tax - 1977 (3) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Plus+
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1977 (3) TMI 160 - SC - Income Tax

  1. 2024 (10) TMI 552 - HC
  2. 2024 (5) TMI 1408 - HC
  3. 2024 (5) TMI 722 - HC
  4. 2024 (2) TMI 941 - HC
  5. 2024 (1) TMI 570 - HC
  6. 2023 (10) TMI 932 - HC
  7. 2022 (9) TMI 446 - HC
  8. 2021 (10) TMI 1411 - HC
  9. 2021 (9) TMI 829 - HC
  10. 2021 (7) TMI 693 - HC
  11. 2020 (5) TMI 316 - HC
  12. 2020 (6) TMI 198 - HC
  13. 2020 (5) TMI 636 - HC
  14. 2019 (8) TMI 1483 - HC
  15. 2019 (1) TMI 1868 - HC
  16. 2018 (12) TMI 1542 - HC
  17. 2018 (3) TMI 291 - HC
  18. 2018 (2) TMI 2029 - HC
  19. 2016 (7) TMI 585 - HC
  20. 2016 (9) TMI 719 - HC
  21. 2016 (2) TMI 408 - HC
  22. 2013 (9) TMI 708 - HC
  23. 2013 (8) TMI 584 - HC
  24. 2013 (8) TMI 649 - HC
  25. 2013 (2) TMI 695 - HC
  26. 2013 (3) TMI 521 - HC
  27. 2013 (2) TMI 39 - HC
  28. 2012 (12) TMI 441 - HC
  29. 2011 (2) TMI 955 - HC
  30. 2010 (9) TMI 774 - HC
  31. 2009 (4) TMI 967 - HC
  32. 2008 (10) TMI 245 - HC
  33. 2002 (3) TMI 68 - HC
  34. 1999 (6) TMI 47 - HC
  35. 1982 (5) TMI 45 - HC
  36. 2024 (8) TMI 520 - AT
  37. 2024 (8) TMI 466 - AT
  38. 2024 (7) TMI 1328 - AT
  39. 2024 (7) TMI 1368 - AT
  40. 2024 (6) TMI 982 - AT
  41. 2024 (5) TMI 438 - AT
  42. 2023 (10) TMI 1025 - AT
  43. 2023 (6) TMI 1205 - AT
  44. 2023 (7) TMI 1255 - AT
  45. 2022 (12) TMI 976 - AT
  46. 2020 (12) TMI 501 - AT
  47. 2019 (7) TMI 873 - AT
  48. 2019 (7) TMI 1598 - AT
  49. 2019 (7) TMI 324 - AT
  50. 2019 (6) TMI 857 - AT
  51. 2019 (2) TMI 1798 - AT
  52. 2019 (1) TMI 1818 - AT
  53. 2019 (1) TMI 2041 - AT
  54. 2018 (5) TMI 241 - AT
  55. 2017 (12) TMI 353 - AT
  56. 2017 (10) TMI 878 - AT
  57. 2017 (11) TMI 1204 - AT
  58. 2017 (10) TMI 527 - AT
  59. 2017 (9) TMI 1976 - AT
  60. 2017 (5) TMI 1784 - AT
  61. 2017 (5) TMI 1152 - AT
  62. 2017 (2) TMI 1181 - AT
  63. 2016 (11) TMI 1741 - AT
  64. 2016 (11) TMI 1044 - AT
  65. 2016 (7) TMI 901 - AT
  66. 2016 (10) TMI 947 - AT
  67. 2016 (2) TMI 490 - AT
  68. 2016 (2) TMI 325 - AT
  69. 2015 (9) TMI 137 - AT
  70. 2015 (5) TMI 820 - AT
  71. 2015 (3) TMI 1278 - AT
  72. 2015 (1) TMI 1253 - AT
  73. 2013 (11) TMI 1525 - AT
  74. 2013 (11) TMI 626 - AT
  75. 2013 (6) TMI 497 - AT
  76. 2013 (12) TMI 279 - AT
  77. 2012 (6) TMI 449 - AT
  78. 2011 (12) TMI 85 - AT
  79. 2009 (4) TMI 533 - AT
  80. 2008 (2) TMI 887 - AT
  81. 2007 (11) TMI 348 - AT
  82. 2007 (8) TMI 125 - AT
  83. 2004 (10) TMI 126 - AT
  84. 2002 (5) TMI 208 - AT
  85. 2002 (2) TMI 321 - AT
  86. 1999 (12) TMI 103 - AT
  87. 1999 (9) TMI 109 - AT
  88. 1999 (2) TMI 672 - AT
  89. 1994 (7) TMI 204 - AT
  90. 2022 (7) TMI 698 - NAPA
  91. 1995 (11) TMI 468 - Board
Issues Involved:
1. Best Judgment Assessment under Section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax, 1963.
2. Principles of Natural Justice and the Right to Cross-Examine.
3. Interpretation of the Proviso to Section 17(3) and Rule 15 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Best Judgment Assessment under Section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax, 1963:
The case revolves around the best judgment assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer under Section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax, 1963. The Sales Tax Officer found the returns submitted by the assessee to be incorrect and incomplete because certain sales recorded in the books of third parties were not reflected in the assessee's books. Consequently, the Sales Tax Officer proceeded to make a best judgment assessment. The High Court quashed the assessment orders, holding that the assessee was entitled to cross-examine the third parties whose accounts were relied upon by the Sales Tax Officer. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the best judgment assessment must be based on relevant materials and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

2. Principles of Natural Justice and the Right to Cross-Examine:
The judgment extensively discusses the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alterem partem, which requires that no person should be condemned unheard. The Supreme Court reiterated that tax authorities, while not bound by technical rules of evidence, must comply with the fundamental rules of justice. The Court held that the right to cross-examine witnesses is an integral part of the principles of natural justice, especially when the evidentiary material from third parties is used against the assessee. The Court stated, "Cross-examination is one of the most efficacious methods of establishing truth and exposing falsehood."

3. Interpretation of the Proviso to Section 17(3) and Rule 15 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act:
The proviso to Section 17(3) mandates that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to prove the correctness or completeness of the return. The Supreme Court interpreted this to mean that the assessee has the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses whose accounts are used against him. The Court observed, "The opportunity to prove the correctness or completeness of the return would necessarily carry with it the right to examine witnesses and that would include equally the right to cross-examine witnesses examined by the Sales Tax Officer." Rule 15 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act reiterates this requirement, emphasizing that the assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity to prove the correctness or completeness of his return.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the assessee has the right to cross-examine third parties whose accounts are used as a basis for the best judgment assessment. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and provides a detailed interpretation of Section 17(3) and its proviso, along with Rule 15 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates