9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellate Tribunal. Both the revisions are, being disposed of by a common judgment. 3.. Inspections were conducted on the business premises of the revision petitioner on August 26, 1987, October 27, 1987 and December 9, 1987. On inspection made on August 26, 1987, the Sales Tax Officer found certain discrepancies (i) that day book was not written up-to-date and the same was posted up to May 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess. The submission before us is that there are two nips in one pints and that if the entry of nips and pints are read correctly, then the quantity will tally. It is also submitted that from the shortage, no adverse inference can be drawn that there was any suppression of stock on the part of the petitioner. 5.. We have carefully gone through the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal emp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of the appellate authority. Considering the explanation given by the petitioner and the nature of the discrepancies which are of trivial nature, we are of the considered view that though technically the book version of the petitioner could be rejected as the day book was not posted up-to-date, can in no case addition at the rate of 5 per cent be sustained. On taxable turnover, we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
