9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1207 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxSuppression of facts - Kerala Abkari Act - In the inspection conducted in the business premises of the appellant, it was found that there was a shortage of 620.95 litres of Government sealed arrack and an excess of 620.95 litres of unsealed arrack in the bottles found in the business premises of the appellant/assessee - Imposition of penalty and six tines differential duty - High Court reduced penalty and differential duty - Held that - commissioner (appeal) hold that, apart from the stock variation found in the inspection, no actual case of suppression of unaccounted arrack was found - assessment is modified by limiting the addition by three times from six times, accordingly, turn-over quantified of the appellant/assessee and also the tax liability both on the Sales Tax as well as on the turn-over tax - Following decision of A.Raghavamma vs. A. Chenavamma 1963 (4) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT - order of commissioner (Appeals) sustained by the tribunal and High Court. None of these authorities have committed any error whatsoever, which would call for our interference. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
Assessment of tax liability based on stock variation in arrack sales for the assessment year 1991-92. Analysis: The appellant, a licensed arrack dealer under the Kerala Abkari Act, faced assessment proceedings for the year 1991-92. An inspection revealed a shortage of 620.95 litres of sealed arrack and an excess of unsealed arrack in the appellant's business premises. The Sales Tax Department submitted a report, leading to a re-opening of assessment. The appellant explained that the sealed bottles were opened for convenience, but the assessing authority determined a substantial turnover amount, alleging suppression of sales. The authority issued a tax demand notice, which the appellant challenged before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority, noting no evidence of unaccounted arrack suppression, reduced the turnover addition from six times to three times. The appellant then appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision. Subsequently, the appellant filed a Tax Revision before the High Court, arguing that the accounts were not fully posted during inspection, leading to stock variation. The High Court, citing precedent, dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the lower courts' orders. After reviewing the judgments and orders, the Supreme Court found no errors warranting interference. Consequently, the Civil Appeal was dismissed, with no costs imposed.
|
