2013 (11) TMI 560 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Discrepancy in books of accounts - Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in overlooking the law that when the entire alleged stock difference is less than 2% the G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 26.01.1988 contemplates that such stock difference can be ignored for purpose of making assessment under the Act - Held that - As per the letter of the Indian Overseas Bank, Kodambakkam Branch, which is a Nationalised Bank, the total stock of polythene granules stored in Key cash Godown as accepted by the Bank was 8750 kgs. When that being the case, the apparent error in the statement made by the assessee cannot be taken as advantage of by the Revenue to make the assessment on the stock position. The view of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was that it was a subsequent document from the Nationalised Bank and hence, it could not be given credence to the stock position. Such view of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be accepted since the stock was under the Bank s custody and the assessee had no control over it at any point of time - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reversal of order by Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
2. Ignoring stock difference for assessment purposes

Issue 1: Reversal of order by Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
The case involved a revision against the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order concerning the assessment year 1994-95. The primary contention raised was whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and reinstating the assessment order. The assessee challenged this reversal, citing the D-3 proposal formulated by enforcement wing officials, which had been criticized by the Apex Court and a Division Bench of the High Court. The Tribunal's decision was questioned for going against accepted facts and laws. The Tribunal's action was based on an inspection by enforcement officials that revealed discrepancies in the assessee's accounts, leading to a best judgment assessment by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, however, argued that the stock discrepancy was less than 2%, which, according to G.O.Ms.No.200, could be ignored for assessment purposes.

Issue 2: Ignoring stock difference for assessment purposes
During the inspection, the Enforcement Wing Officials found discrepancies in the assessee's stock, leading to the Assessing Officer making a best judgment assessment. The assessee contested this assessment by presenting a letter from a nationalized bank confirming the actual stock quantity, which was lower than what was initially stated. The First Appellate Authority granted relief to the assessee based on this discrepancy. However, the Revenue appealed to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which overturned the relief granted, stating that the subsequent statement from the bank did not nullify the initial statement made by the assessee during the inspection. The Tribunal held that the bank's letter was a subsequent document and could not be relied upon to determine the stock position. The High Court disagreed with this view, emphasizing that the stock was under the bank's custody, and the assessee had no control over it. Therefore, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the Tax Case (Revision) filed by the assessee.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented by the parties, and the reasoning behind the High Court's decision, preserving the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text.