9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the regular accounts and the total omissions as per the slips were found to be Rs. 73,617.65. The earliest of the slips was dated 14th May, 1970 and the last date found in the slips in 11th December, 1970. Besides, on the day of the inspection, it was found that there was stock variation in the actual stock on hand and the book balance. For the said deficiency in stock, the assessees were levied a compounding fee of Rs. 500. Taking note of the transactions found in the slips as well as the deficiency in the stocks on the date of the inspection, the total suppressions for the year 1970-71 were taken as twice the turnover of actual suppressions found at the time of the inspection. Thus, the total estimated suppressions came to Rs. 1,47,235 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s laid down in Velayutha Raja v. Board of Revenue (C.T.) [1970] 26 STC 176, that the Board of Revenue exercising its revisional power under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 should not have interfered with the factual finding rendered by the appellate authority, that the transactions referred to in the slips have been accounted for by the assessees in their regular accounts, and therefore, no addition towards possible suppressions could be justified, that the burden of proof for escapement of the turnover and the liability is on the Revenue and the Revenue has not discharged that burden, and that the Board of Revenue should have in any event agreed with the view of the appellate authority that all the 27 slips related ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r a proper scrutiny of the same material as were before the appellate authority, the addition of the turnover of Rs. 32,970 by the Board towards possible suppressions cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore, no interference is called for with regard to the assessment. However, the levy of penalty at 1 1/2 times the tax due on the actual suppression of Rs. 32,970 does not appear to be tenable. It is no doubt true that the Board of Revenue had the power to restore the order of penalty which has been set aside by the appellate authority. But here, in this case, the total suppression has been found by the Board to be Rs. 32,970 as against the turnover of Rs. 1,47,235.30 being the suppressed turnover estimated by the assessing authority. The B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
