1970 (3) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....har of Purulia and 50 tins of coconut oil from Madanlal & Co. of Purulia on 22nd June, 1957. (iii) They failed to account for their transactions with Ghanshyamdas Nirmalkumar of Rourkela. (iv) They failed to account for all their transactions noted in five slips of paper seized by an Assistant Sales Tax Officer of the department from their business premises on 16th January, 1959. (v) They failed to explain stock discrepancy in betel-nut as found after stock verification on 29th January, 1959. 2.. On account of the aforesaid defects, the books of account were rejected and the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela Circle, passed a best of judgment assessment. Against the order of the Sales Tax Officer the petitioners went up in appeal. The cases we....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to interfere." Aggrieved by this order, the dealer asked for a reference. The following questions have accordingly been referred by the Tribunal to this court under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act: "(1) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is based on an error apparent on the face of the records and hence liable to be set aside. (2) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the slips of paper received from the shop-premises of the dealer on 16th January, 1959, have affected his final decision for rejecting the books of accounts of the dealer as justified for enhancement of the gross turnover by Rs. 50,000 per quarter." 4.. The question for consideration is whether the ultimate conclu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his court. The principle is so salutary that no authority is necessary. It pervades all branches of law, civil, criminal and taxation. The matter is concluded by a number of Supreme Court decisions: see Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax[1954] 26 I.T.R. 736 (S.C.)., G. Venkataswami Naidu v Commissioner of Income-tax[1959] 35 I.T.R. 594 (S.C.)., and Killick Nixon & Co. v. Income-tax Commissioner, Bombay[1967] 66 I.T.R. 714 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 9. 6.. The result of the aforesaid analysis is that the Tribunal's order, which is the result of an error of record, cannot be accepted. We accordingly answer both the questions in the affirmative. 7.. The duty of the Tribunal is to dispose of the case in accordance with the answ....