9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 450 and Rs. 5,207, respectively. The assessing officer worked out the average of sales recorded on August 14, 1990 and March 23, 1991 along and arrived at a figure of Rs. 5,329. Number of working holidays was fixed at 363 days, excluding Deepavali and Pongal and the annual sales turnover that attracted. Liability under section 7A of the Act was also arrived and fixed at Rs. 3,13,760 as follows: Ground oil, Ghee and vanaspathy . . . Rs. 2,61,805 Coffee powder . . . Rs. 33,380 Kerosene . . . Rs. 18,575 Rs. 3,13,760 The total taxable sales were calculated at Rs. 22,48,187. The appellate authority found that the books of account cannot be rejected on the ground that the bills were not produced and that it is practically not possible to maintain small sales bill issued to the customers and that the appellant is maintaining daily sales register in a proper manner and that the rejection of the entire books of accounts is not proper. The appellate authority also found that the two days of inspection which were taken into account were, days prior to Independence Day and the shandy day at Namakkal, when the floating population is high and consequently, sales will also be high. As regards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 46 STC 32 (Mad). A. Velayutha Raja v. Board of Revenue (C.T.), Madras [1970] 26 STC 176 (Mad). The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that there are many cases where there may be loss of revenue and the Joint Commissioner is well within his powers to interfere. The learned Special Government Pleader referred to New Dwaraka Lunch Home v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993] 91 STC 36 (AP). The appellate authority has not interfered with the assessment order without giving reasons. He has stated clearly that shandy day at Namakkal and a day prior to Independence Day were rush days and consequently, sales on those days will normally be higher than the regular day sales and sales on those exceptional days should not be taken into account as sale on regular normal days. He has referred to Punjab Gun House v. State of Punjab [1985] 58 STC 299 (P H). The learned senior counsel also referred to Hotel Vallalar v. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai [2008] 15 VST 516 (Mad). In Hotel Vallalar v. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai [2008] 15 VST 516, this court had held, referring to State of Tamil Nadu v. New Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, were justified in holding that the petitioner was guilty of suppression of turnover of sales and purchases of articles while dealing in cooked food in the name and style of M/s. New Dwaraka Lunch Home at Kakinada. It has been found as a fact by the authorities below that as compared to the returned turnover, the actual turnover of the petitioner was much more. That estimate was made on the basis of the inspection made on spot by the Commercial Tax Officer on October 12, 1987, at 8.40 p. m. in the hotel. It was found that there was cash of Rs. 3,600. It was not supported by various relevant bills and the accounts also were not found to be properly maintained. On the basis of this material, the Commercial Tax Officer made an estimate of purchases and sales undertaken by the petitioner during the year and consequently, sales tax was levied, after computing the suppressed sales and purchases. These findings are based on relevant evidence and cannot be interfered with. The Tribunal was justified in relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali [1973] 32 STC 77 and in holding that on the basis of one day's inspection wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner while exercising his powers of revision should have adverted and considered the pleas raised on behalf of the assessees. This court held thus (page 448): 4. The Joint Commissioner, however, we find, after dealing with the jurisdiction under section 34 of the Act, did not advert to or consider the other pleas raised on behalf of the assessees in the reply to the proposal and set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored that of the assessing authority. It was an obligation on the Joint Commissioner while disposing of the revision in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision to have dealt with the objections raised by the assessees and also consider whether or not the discretion had been properly exercised by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Joint Commissioner did not advert to those aspects at all and only after recording a finding that the suo motu powers of revision could be exercised by him in the facts and circumstances of the case, against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That is clearly erroneous and the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
