9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st appeals, the assessments for the years 1980-81, 1982-83 and 1985-86 were confirmed and slight modifications were made in the assessments for the years 1983-84 and 1987-88. In second appeals filed by the assessee, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, disposed of the matter for all the five years by a common order dated October 29, 1992. The appeals were partly allowed. In brief, there was reduction in the quantum of the estimates for all the years. The assessee has come up in revisions, assailing the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated October 29, 1992. 2.. We heard counsel. 3.. Admittedly, there were surprise inspections of the assessee's business place in all the five years. For the year 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to hold that the accounts are not regularly and correctly kept. So, the plea of the assessee that the accounts and returns should not have been rejected is not acceptable. We are of the view that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the rejection of accounts is proper and valid for all the five years. The order of the Appellate Tribunal does not disclose any error of law on this score. 4.. When once the accounts are rejected, an estimate of the taxable turnover is called for. On that aspect, ordinarily, the best judgment assessment should be to the best of judgment of the assessing authority. This has been so held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali [1973] 32 STC 77 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... average running stock. The said finding of the Appellate Tribunal is largely a finding of fact. There is no error of law in the order of the Appellate Tribunal on this score also. We decline to interfere with the quantum of estimates sustained by the Appellate Tribunal. 6.. It was vehemently argued before us that as per Circular No. C1.18180/ 90/TX dated June 5, 1990 of the Board of Revenue (Taxes), certain instructions have been given which will go to show that no "penal action" against gold merchants need be taken if the difference in weighment of gold jewellery is below 2 per cent when the total stock of gold jewellery is 10 kgs or less and 1 per cent difference for the stock above 10 kgs. The circular brought to our notice is to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that this plea should fail for reasons more than one. No reliance was placed on the above circular before the statutory authorities. The statutory authorities had no occasion to consider the matter from the angle of the above circular. Secondly, the circular will be applicable only in the case of penal action. In the five cases, we are not concerned with the penal action, but only with the regular assessments. The circular quoted above may not apply to such cases. Finally, the circular was not in force during the relevant assessment years. 7.. It was then argued that the substance of the circular is to the effect that small difference or variation should not be made much of and that a lenient view should be taken. But it is for the Boa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
