9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turnover was fixed at Rs. 19,77,790. A total tax of Rs. 50,044.41 and a surcharge of Rs. 4,003.55 were demanded. The accounts were rejected for eight reasons. The business premises of the assessee was inspected on April 21, 1983. The SIR prepared by the Intelligence Wing when compared with the accounts showed discrepancy. The accounts did not show any purchase of gum for crushing copra. As per Invoice No. 1773 dated August 25, 1983, the assessee has despatched to Cochin 11.65 quintals C.N. oil while the opening stock was only 9.70 quintals. There was an excess of 1.95 quintals of C.N. oil. The meter card showing consumption of electricity was not produced. The assessee also did not maintain a register showing the particulars of persons who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate authority was questioned. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. So also, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The assessee has filed this revision against the common order so passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated May 14, 1990, in T.A. No. 479 of 1988 (the appeal filed by the Revenue). No revision is filed against the dismissal of the assessee's appeal (T.A. No. 25 of 1989). 3.. We heard counsel for the assessee Mr. N.D. Premachandran, as also counsel for the Revenue-Senior Government Pleader Mr. V.C. James. 4.. Counsel for the respondent/Revenue submitted that in this revision filed against the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal (T.A. No. 479 of 1988), the plea made by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e revision filed by the assessee should fail for more reasons than one. The Appellate Tribunal passed a common order dated May 14, 1990, in the two appeals-one filed by the Revenue and the other filed by the assessee. It was in the assessee's appeal the rejection of his accounts and the quantum of estimate sustained by the Deputy Commissioner were assailed. No revision is filed from the order of the Tribunal rejecting the assessee's said appeal (T.A. No. 25 of 1989). That portion of the common order has become final and conclusive. On the other hand, the 'revision is filed from that portion of the common order rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue (T.A. No. 479 of 1988). Therein the only question was whether the modification ordered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view, that even on the merits, the plea of the assessee should fail. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in paragraph 2 of its order, adverted to the fact. In paragraph 5 of the order, the Appellate Tribunal highlighted the grounds which resulted in rejection of accounts. The inspection made on April 21, 1983, disclosed discrepancy in accounts. Consignment of C.N. oil to Cochin was much more than the stock held on August 25, 1983. Primary details in respect of paddy hulling and wheat grinding were not available. No manufacturing register was maintained. The Appellate Tribunal held that the rejection of accounts, in the circumstances, was justified. It also held that the estimate made on the basis of current consumption employed by the assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
