TMI Blog1960 (4) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... howed total purchases of Rs. 4,58,463-5-9 and sales of Rs. 1,59,553-13-9. It claims deductions of the two amounts for which deductions have actually been allowed and after allowance of such deductions the taxable turnover left was Rs. 2,610-1-0, on which the applicant paid sales tax in the amount of Rs. 81-9-0. The Assessing Authority found (1) that the petitioner-firm had not prepared an account of profits and losses, it had kept no account of opening and closing stock nor capital account and it has maintained no balance-sheet for the relevant year, (2) that the purchases were of the value of a little over four and half lacs and the sales shown were of the value of the little over one and a half lacs, which disparity was abnormal, and (3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permitted the learned counsel for the applicant to read the grounds to us. In it the case has been stated at full length on behalf of the applicant-firm. The learned Financial Commissioner, however, on 3rd May, 1957, refused to interfere with the orders of the authorities below coming to the conclusion that no question of law was involved in the case and that there was only a question of fact, whether or not the accounts of the applicantfirm are reliable. He dismissed the revision application. The applicant-firm then applied to the Financial Commissioner under section 22(1) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act (East Punjab Act No. 46 of 1948), for drawing up a statement of the case and for reference of the following questions of law to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, 1958, dismissed this application on the ground that interpretation of the accounts of the applicant-firm does not bring in any question of law but brings in merely considerations of questions of fact upon which the authorities below have concurrently and consistently found against the applicant-firm. It is thereafter that the applicant-firm has made the present application under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 22 of the East Punjab Act No. 46 of 1948 praying that this Court may require the Financial Commissioner to state the case and refer to it the questions of law that have already been reproduced above. In the application in addition two more questions, as below, have been suggested, upon which it is said, reference should be in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs to section 13(1) of the East Punjab Act No. 46 of 1948 and contends that no notice has been given under that provision to the applicant-firm in regard to the manner of keeping accounts, but it is obvious, that that provision can have no application to the present case as here the Assessing Authority was scrutinising accounts of a past year about the maintenance of which no notice could have been issued under section 13(1) of the Act at the time of the assessment. This provision has no application to the present case and raises no question of law in this case. It may turn to be a question of law of some importance, if it is the only factor taken into consideration, when purchases in a particular year of a dealer far exceed sales shown by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these railway receipts. Considerable other quantity of timber was purchased by the applicantfirm and the purchases were not shown in its account books so that it may not be necessary for it to show the sales of the same. At one stage it was explained on behalf of the applicant-firm that the remaining timber came from the applicant-firm's branch at Dhilwan and was sent to the applicant-firm's branch at Pathankot and thus there was no occasion for making entries about it in the account books at Jullundur. This is not true for if that was so, the railway receipts in regard to the purchase of timber, which the Assessing Authority considered, could not possibly have related to such timber for in the case of timber sent from Dhilwan to Pathankot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in this connection is whether the evidence on the record justified the order of the Financial Commissioner. Two patent facts are there and those are the omissions to write in the account books purchases about drums and timber, so that the applicant-firm may not later on show the sales of the same and thus escape payment of the sales tax. This material by itself could be the basis of the conclusion of the authorities below and if in addition they have taken into consideration other factors which may seem to involve questions of law reference on the latter would be meaningless for the case of the applicant-firm must fail on the first consideration upon which the authorities below could base their conclusions, with which conclusions of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
