9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rily. When the ghee was being transported, the check post authorities detected the purchases made by the assessee. Subsequently, thereafter, the assessee filed A-1 return and disclosed the turnover of Rs. 3,57,290 on which he was liable to pay sales tax. It is not in dispute that the return filed by the assessee was accepted without any variation and the assessee had also paid the corresponding tax. For the assessee's failure to file the return voluntarily and before detection by the authorities, the Commercial Tax Officer took proceedings under section 14(3) read with section 14(8) of the Act for the levy of penalty and eventually levied penalty of Rs. 75,925 which was five times the amount of tax levied. The assessee filed an appeal agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so submitted the returns subsequent to the date of inspection. According to the learned counsel the assessment in this case is governed by the provisions of section 14(3) of the Act. It is contended that any assessment made under section 14(3) should be considered to be a best judgment assessment and consequently the power to levy penalty can be exercised under sub-section (8) of section 14 of the Act. The expression "best judgment assessment" is not defined under the Act. There is however sufficient guidance in judicial pronouncements as to what constitutes a best judgment assessment. Where an assessee filed a return which is either incomplete or false, involving the assessing authority estimating the turnover to the best of his judgment h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es these items in the dealer's turnover, the assessment cannot be regarded as based on best judgment. The Supreme Court held that penalty cannot be levied in respect of such items. There is also authority for the view that where a return is accepted, the assessment made cannot be considered to be a best judgment assessment in a decision of this Court in T.R.C. Nos. 24 to 29 of 1977 dated 31st January, 1978 (Pusuluri Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. [1978] 42 STC 103). In the above case the assessing authority accepted the returns and finalised the assessments and at the same time initiated proceedings for the levy of penalty. Dealing with the question regarding levy of penalty this Court observed that where a return is filed subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
