9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (12) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returned by the assessee? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the turnover returned by the assessee should have been accepted by the assessing authority? (iii) Whether, under the circumstances of the case, this Tribunal was warranted in regarding the estimate made by the Departmental Authorities as 'best judgment' assessment under section 11(4) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947? (iv) Whether, under the circumstances of the case, the direction by this Tribunal to the Sales Tax Officer, for disposal of the case 'in the light of the directions above' was proper?" 2.. The facts material for this reference, as set out in the statement of the case, are these. The applicant is a forest contractor and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal stated that the turnover given by the applicant was too suspicious to be accepted even though it was supported by regularly maintained books of account. 3.. It is urged before us that since the Sales Tax Authorities and the Tribunal found that the applicant's account books were regularly maintained and did not also disclose any flaw which could discredit the entries made in those books, they were bound to accept the booksales and to proceed to tax the sales on that basis. In support of his view, he relied upon two cases: S. Veeriah Reddiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Travancore-Cochin[1960] 38 I.T.R. 152. , and R.M.P. Perianna Pillai & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1961] 42 I.T.R. 370. We consider it sufficient to say that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hose returns. The Sales Tax Officer was not satisfied with the returns and required the applicant to produce his account books. In compliance with this requirement, the applicant produced the account books which were found to be unreliable. That being so, there was no compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 11 of the Act of 1947 and the Sales Tax Officer was entitled to make a best judgment assessment: Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal v. State of Bihar [1957] 8 S.T.C. 770. 6.. The fourth question is easily answered. The only direction given by the Board was that there should be a fresh assessment according to law because the one made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was arbitrary. We think no exception can be taken to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
