Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 348 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of Rules 42 and 43 of the Rules for the purpose of assessment under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - deduction of only 15% while estimating the suppressed turnover - KVAT Act. Held that:- The estimate of suppressed turnover by the authorities under the KVAT Act are findings of fact in the realm of best judgment assessment by the authorities and unless there is a perversity in the same, no question of law arises requiring consideration by this Court under Section 65 of the KVAT Act - Secondly, the contention raised by the learned counsel that the information or the documents maintained under Rules 42 and 43 of the Rules could not have been relied upon by the assessing authority under the provisions of the KVAT Act is misconceived. As a matter of fact, the actual removal of goods, minerals (granite in present case), the information and documents maintained by the Mining Department is indeed the best evidence which could be relied upon by the assessing authorities under the provisions of the KVAT Act. Assessment of suppressed turnover - Held that:- It is a matter of fact finding and best judgment assessment by the authorities under the Act. The assessee cannot claim as a right that deduction from gross turnover to the extent of more than 15% ought to have been given in the hands of the assessee based upon a communication by the Mysore Minerals Limited dated 8.10.2009 as extracted by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) in Annexure-D dated 10.3.2011 - The deduction given by the assessing authority and as upheld by the two Appellate Authorities to the extent of 15% on the basis of which the suppressed turnover in the present case has been finally estimated to the extent of ₹ 28,64,220/ - appears to be reasonable and justified and therefore it cannot be held that such orders are perverse requiring our interference under Section 65 of the KVAT Act. Revision petition dismissed.
|