2017 (2) TMI 81 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Enhancement of escaped turnover to the tune of 28 times - Held that - The authorities have not recorded any finding as to how assessment has been enhanced by almost 28 times. There has to be some reasonable basis or nexus between the escaped transaction noticed and the consequential enhancement made by the authorities. This Court had earlier indicated that unless there exists other material to come to a different conclusion, the authorities could enhance the assessment by twice the amount i.e. ₹ 1,40,000/- - tribunal was not justified in enhancing the turnover above twice the escaped transaction in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the enhancement to the tune of 28 times is not justified - revision allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Enhancement of turnover based on a single unaccounted transaction.
2. Justification of the significant increase in turnover by the authorities.
3. Rejection of assessee's plea and imposition of tax.
4. Tribunal's decision to enhance turnover by 28 times.
5. Applicability of previous court orders.
6. Misdirection by the tribunal in assessing the case.
7. Lack of reasonable basis for the enhancement of turnover.
8. Failure to establish deliberate intent or persistent default by the assessee.
9. Inadequate consideration of disclosed turnover and tax payment.
10. Justification of enhancing turnover beyond twice the escaped transaction.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the issue of enhancing turnover based on a single unaccounted transaction amounting to ?70,000, significantly increasing the turnover by almost 28 times. The revisionist contended that only twice the amount of the escaped transaction should have been considered for tax liability, citing a previous court decision. The Tribunal's decision to impose twenty times the tax payable without providing a reasonable basis was questioned, leading to the matter being remitted for fresh consideration.

The tribunal's subsequent reaffirmation of its earlier decision without justifying the significant enhancement prompted the revision by the assessee. The revisionist argued that the turnover increase was disproportionate, considering the disclosed turnover of over ?9 crores and lack of evidence indicating deliberate intent or persistent default. The respondent, however, alleged that the assessee transported goods twice on the same transaction, justifying the tax liability.

Upon review, the Court found that the sole basis for enhancing the turnover was the double transportation of goods on the disclosed transaction. Despite the revisionist's substantial turnover disclosure and tax payment, the authorities failed to establish a reasonable nexus for the 28-fold increase. The Court reiterated that unless supported by additional material, the assessment could only be enhanced by twice the escaped transaction amount. The tribunal's failure to provide independent findings or material led to the conclusion that the enhancement beyond twice the escaped transaction was unjustified.

Consequently, the Court allowed the revision, ruling that the tribunal was not justified in increasing the turnover by 28 times. The decision highlighted the importance of a reasonable basis for enhancing assessments and the need to consider all relevant factors before imposing tax liabilities based on unaccounted transactions.