9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s being decided by this judgment. 2.. The assessee, Messrs. Jyothi Jewellery, Market Road, Palakkad, is a partnership-firm dealing in purchase of old jewellery, melting and purification and in addition manufacture of new ornaments and sale thereof. The three brothers, K.V. Ramachandran, K.V. Damodaran and K.V. Bhaskaran are the partners. The assessment year was the year when the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was in force. Taxable turnover of Rs. 5,89,155 was declared by the assessee for the assessment year in question. The Sales Tax Officer, Palakkad, issued notice for production of accounts and it was during this time that firstly on July 6, 1987 the Special Customs, Preventive Road Checking Party, Palakkad, in the process of enquiry question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (Control) Act, 1968. Personal penalty of Rs. 12,500 was also imposed on other partners Mr. K.V. Ramachandran and K.V. Damodaran. 4.. Apart therefrom, the Intelligence Squad of the Sales Tax Department also inspected the shop on November 25, 1987 to find excess stock of 22.700 gms. of gold jewellery. With regard to this inspection it is pertinent to note that for non-maintenance of correct accounts, the offence was admitted and thereafter compounded. The accounts were scrutinised and thereafter notice was issued by the Sales Tax Officer to resort to the best judgment assessment on an estimated turnover of Rs. 69,47,290. For this estimation, the notice contained that the basis was two inspections, dated July 6, 1987 and November 25, 1987. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 was estimated to be Rs. 46,35,520. Accordingly the balance of tax and surcharge payable also as altered and was reduced to Rs. 2,02,643 and Rs. 14,425, totalling to Rs. 2,17,068. We find from the petition of the tax revision that out of this amount of Rs. 2,17,068 during the pendency of the said appeal proceedings itself the assessee paid Rs. 1,06,438 leaving the balance of Rs. 1,10,630. 6.. Naturally the assessee was conducting proceedings both before the Appellate Bench-the Sales Tax Tribunal as well as the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, Madras, in regard to the order of adjudication. 7.. As stated at the outset the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was approached both by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed them. We find that in the appeals relating to the assessment year 1986-87 the assessee got substantial relief and therefore the proceedings in regard thereto are not before this Court. 11.. Once, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the authority rejects the accounts and resorts to the best judgment assessment and with regard to the rejection of the accounts, on admission there is compounding, the only question that remains to be considered is as to whether there is case for interference with regard to the quantum of estimation. It would be found that facts and circumstances of the case floating on the surface of the record, in fact does not even make out a case for interference in regard thereto by the first appellate autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
