T.R.C No. 135 of 2003 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In view of the shop inspection reports the assessing authority has rejected the returns filed by the assessee and thereafter has proceeded to passa best judgment assessment and while doing so has made an addition of 10%of the taxable own goods available for sale…
- Para 55. In the assessment order there is some reference to the declaration forms and non supply of copies of the same to the assessee, etc. But after going through the records, we find that the assessing authority has not relied T.R.c.No.135 of 20032upon the declaration…
Judgment
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------ T.R.C.No.135 of 2003 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 17th day of March, 2008ORDERH.L.Dattu, C.J.Petitioner before us is a dealer registered both under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('KGST Act' for short) and the CentralSales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act' for short). In this tax revision case we are concerned with the assessment year 1989-90 under the provisions of the KGSTAct.
The assessee had filed its annual returns before the assessing authority conceding a particular total and taxable turnover.
During the assessment year in question the Intelligence Wing of the Department had conducted two shop inspections and had noticed certain omissions and defects in the books of accounts maintained by the dealer.
In view of the shop inspection reports the assessing authority has rejected the returns filed by the assessee and thereafter has proceeded to passa best judgment assessment and while doing so has made an addition of 10%of the taxable own goods available for sale towards the omission and defects noticed at the time of shop inspections, and accordingly has added a sum ofRs.5,69,783.99 towards the probable omission noticed at the time of shop inspections.
In the assessment order there is some reference to the declaration forms and non supply of copies of the same to the assessee, etc. But after going through the records, we find that the assessing authority has not relied T.R.c.No.135 of 20032upon the declaration forms though there is some indication with regard to that in the assessment order.6. Here is a case where based on two shop inspection reports the assessing authority taking into consideration the probable omissions has madea just addition in a sum of Rs.5,69,783.99 when the turnover of the dealer is to the tune of Rs.45,98, 597.13. The addition made by the assessing authority is sustained by both the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal.7. Since the order of assessment is purely based on estimation, in our opinion, no question of law would arise in this revision petition for our consideration and decision in a petition filed under Section 41 of the KGST Act. In view of the above, without going into the other details of the case, this tax revision case is rejected confirming the orders passed by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE vns
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963; CentralSales Tax Act, 1956.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 17 Mar 2008. The bench was K T SANKARAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.