1991 (7) TMI 311

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent sources. A surprise visit was made by the officers of the Sales Tax Department on August 11, 1975, at the business premises of the applicant. Certain account-books and papers relating to the samvat year 2031 were seized. After scrutiny of the record seized, a notice was issued as regards the assessment of suppressed transactions. Ultimately the Sales Tax Officer found numerous suppressed transactions and assessed the same to tax. The Sales Tax Officer found that turnover of sales of Rs. 26,82,537 was suppressed and it was not shown. He also found that there were suppressed purchases of Rs. 17,88,817. These purchases were not shown. He also found that the books of account were not correct and complete. As a corollary of this finding, he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e referred to this Court its opinion: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that certain transactions were transactions of inter-State sales, as the department had not conclusively proved that the said transactions were transactions of inter-State sales by discharging the burden of proof which lay upon it? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sales tax authorities were not required to prove conclusively certain sales, purchases or inter-State sales and that they were entitled to make inferences, interpretations and guesswork on the basis of the seized records of M/s. Matangi Transport Company and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ties have not been able to point out as to how this question can be said to be a question of law. 5.. So far as the second question is concerned, once it is held that the first question is a question of fact and no question of law is involved, the second question also is not required to be answered. 6.. In view of the aforesaid discussion, our answer to the first question is that it is a question of fact and no question of law is involved therein. Hence it is not required to be answered. Similarly as far as the second question is concerned, in view of our answer to the first question, this question is also not required to be answered. The reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
Case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X