Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (10) TMI 956

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is completed for each return period, i.e., for each month by separate orders. There is also merit in the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee having not raised any objection against single assessment during the course of assessment, cannot raise a technical objection after monthly assessments are completed through separate orders. We, therefore, answer this question in favour of the Revenue by upholding the validity of separate assessments and rejecting the contentions of the assessee to the contrary. Since the exempted goods, namely, textile, on physical inspection was found only in one of the five shops, we feel the relief granted by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal is reasonable and in any case it is no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e assessee s business was essentially in ready-made garments and very little business in textiles was done only in one shop out of the five shops run by the assessee. On verification of the monthly returns, it was noticed that the assessee claimed exemption on substantial turnover declaring the same as sales turnover of textiles and tax was remitted only on small turnover of ready-made garments declared in the returns. The audit officer found that the assessee was consciously misdeclaring turnover of ready-made garments which is taxable under the Act, as turnover of textiles which was not taxable under the Act. The assessing officer issued notice dated February 25, 2006 to make assessment for the returned period based on details gathered on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... maintainability of monthly assessments while facing the assessment proceedings before the assessing officer. The Government Pleader contended before us that the assessment proceedings as stated above were commenced soon after inspection in the financial year itself and so much so, the assessments cannot be said to have been done after the expiry of the year in which the returned period falls in terms of the provision abovestated. Rule 39(5)(iv) of the KVAT Rules is as follows: Where the best judgment assessment is done after the expiry of the year in which the relevant return periods falls, and the best judgment relates to more than one return period, the assessment shall be made by a single order. However assessment relating to return .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the words where the best judgment assessment is done in rule 39(5)(iv) covers the entire procedure and process adopted by the officer. Admittedly in this case assessment proceedings started during the financial year to which the assessment relates and the final assessment for all the months ended up after the end of the financial year. Since assessment proceedings were initiated and were in fact half-way through during the financial year itself, it cannot be said that assessment is done after the expiry of the year in which the relevant return period falls. Even though counsel for the petitioner contended that the assessment is done only when it is completed and signed, we do not think rule 39(5)(iv) contemplates only finalisati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y treating 30 per cent of the turnover as non-taxable and retaining the assessment of turnover of ready-made garments at 70 per cent of the total turnover declared. The Tribunal also found that the estimation modified by the appellate authority is quite reasonable. Since the exempted goods, namely, textile, on physical inspection was found only in one of the five shops, we feel the relief granted by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal is reasonable and in any case it is not proper for us to interfere with the findings on facts, that too based on data gathered on inspection. We, therefore, do not find the second question raised is a substantial question of law warranting interference under the revisional jurisdicti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates