Delhi High Court
State vs M/S.Jagannath &Jagan on 2 January, 2014
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel(Cj)
STREV No. 85 of 2011
Present : Mr R.P. Kar, Sr. Standing Counsel (CT).
02. 02.01.2014 This revision petition has been preferred
against the order of the Tribunal allowing appeal of the
opp. party and deleting the addition to the declared
turnover of the assessee.
The assessee filed return for the assessment year
2004-05 and produced the books of account. Based on the
report of the intelligence officers supported by loose and
written slips indicating that the entire turnover was not
disclosed in the return, the assessing authority made
addition to the declared turnover, after rejecting the books
of accounts.
On appeal, the appellate authority held that a
part of the turnover which was held to be undisclosed in
the books of accounts was duly explained by the assessee.
Accordingly, to that extent the addition made was deleted.
On further appeal, the Tribunal further reduced the
addition by holding that there was no reasonable basis for
enhancement by six times on an estimate and, in the
circumstances, enhancement should be three times. It
was observed :
"The bare perusal of the impugned order in
which ld. ACST has catalogued thirteen slips as
explained by the dealer, indicate that materials
detected were potential to point out sales
suppression and the estimation of ld. ACST in
this regard at Rs.1,73,442.00 cannot be said
unreasonable. On our query, it is admitted on
verification of those slips that those slips cover
a period of one month i.e. October. It is true
-2-
that no antecedent adverse to the revenue is
found against the dealer. The nature of
business undoubtedly requires estimation
before purchasing a glass or sunmica to be
fitted at the desired place of the customer. The
rejection of books of accounts for the sales
suppression estimated is now found proper.
The next mode of assessment is best judgment
assessment in course of which the ld. ACST has
confined the enhancement to six times as
against ten times by ld. STO keeping the
pattern of suppression detected in the hand
written slips and its duration, we do feel it to
confine the enhancement to three times which
in our considered opinion would be reasonable.
Consequentially, the enhancement would be
Rs.1,73,44.00 x 3=5,20,326.00. Adding the
aforesaid amount, the GTO and TTO are to be
re-determined and consequential computation
of tax is to be worked out. For the said
computation, the matter is to be remitted back
to the ld. STO. Accordingly, the appeal is to be
disposed of."
We have heard learned Standing Counsel for the
Revenue.
Since a revision under Section 24 of the Orissa
Sales Tax Act, 1947 is limited to the issue that the
Tribunal has failed to decide or wrongly decided a
question of law, no ground is made out for our
interference. Estimation of suppressed turnover is a
question of fact to be gone into on case to case basis. In
absence of perversity, the case does not involve a question
of law. In the present case, the Tribunal has considered
the duration to which the transactions related, nature of
business and other circumstances. No perversity has been
-3-
shown in the approach of the Tribunal though a different
view may be possible.
In these circumstances, it cannot be held that
the order of the Tribunal suffers from any error or law.
The petition is dismissed.
..............................
A.K.Goel, C.J.
pcp
.............................
Dr. A.K. Rath, J.
