9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee filed a return showing a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5,60,576 and Rs. 5,13,508 respectively. The assessing authority rejected the return and accounts and estimated the taxable turnover at Rs. 7,62,480. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the respondent took up the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kottayam, who by his order dated October 15, 1991 dismissed the said appeal. The second appeal before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam, was allowed in part. It is against the said order of the Appellate Tribunal the department has come up in revision. 2. The only question arising for consideration in the instant case is as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee and that the addition so made is justified in view of the decision of this Court in T.A.C.A. Association v. State of Kerala [1988] 71 STC 332. 3.. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee-respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in order to justify the estimate of turnover based on the prevailing market price by resorting to the provisions of section 19B, it is necessary that the assessing authority must establish that the assessee factually collected more than the ostensible consideration shown in the accounts and that in the instant case neither the assessing authority nor the first appellate authority had a case that the assessee had in fact collected amounts more than that is shown in the accounts. Learned counsel submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] 131 ITR 597 mentioned supra and also the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Delux Wines v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1990] 77 STC 373. 5.. We will now consider the matter in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the abovementioned cases. The assessing authority after adverting to the reply filed by the assessee regarding the proposal to fix the sale value of jaggery at Rs. 4 per kg. against the accounted value of Rs. 2.83 by resorting to the provisions of section 19B of the Act, observed as follows: "Enquiries conducted by me regarding the average sale value returned by similar dealers revealed that assessee 'A' a registered dealer at Sale Tax Office, 2nd Circle, Kottayam, returned as per kg. value of Rs. 3.76 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn in the accounts. There is absolutely no such finding recorded in the said orders. On the other hand, we find that the Appellate Tribunal had clearly borne in mind the principles laid down by this Court in C.O. Devassy's case [1991] 81 STC 2, which in turn relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese's case [1981] 131 ITR 597, and applied the same to the facts of the case and considered the matter in the following manner: "Here in the case before us, there is absolutely no piece of evidence on record to establish the case that the assessee in this case has factually collected or obtained something more than that shown in his accounts or bills. In the absence of such a definite finding that the assessee has collected anyth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
