9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Tribunal dated 22nd January, 1983, in Tribunal Appeal No. 487 of 1980. The short facts could be stated as follows: The petitioner was an assessee to sales tax on the file of the Sales Tax Officer, Vaikom. He is stated to be a dealer in rubber. For the year 1977-78, he returned a turnover of Rs. 21,57,121.56; and with reference to this entire amount he claimed exemption. Thereafter, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining a record of clandestine transactions. The inspection of the stock of goods showed suppression of turnover by the assessee. By comparison with the stock on 13th February, 1956, the Sales Tax Officer also found that there was suppression of commission sales on that day. The assessee's explanation that there was no suppression was not accepted. This Court went into the material that was purpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays was held to be arbitrary and bad in law. The suppression in that case was in respect of two transactions; and the assessing authority multiplied it by 82 under the presumption that similar transactions were suppressed for all the 82 days and arrived at the turnover. Such a multiplication is not involved in the case on hand; and that decision is not applicable here. 4.. The last decision cite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the books. The Sales Tax Officer made a reassessment by adding 135 per cent of the turnover of the head office disclosed in the regular books of the office. He then applied the same percentage in regard to the assessment of the turnover of the branch. Similarly, for the assessment year 1956-57 the Sales Tax Officer added to the turnover of the head office 200 per cent, in regard to the genera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the tax revision case. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Immediately after the judgment was pronounced, the counsel for the petitioner made an oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not find any substantial question of law of general importance, which requires to be decided by the Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
