1993 (11) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act. In this revision, she assails the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam, dated March 27, 1992 in T.A. No. 266 of 1991. The respondent is the State. The assessee is a dealer in arrack. We are concerned with the assessment year 1987-88. During the year, the officials of the Sales Tax Department inspected the business place of the assessee on September 24, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kottayam, who, by order dated February 28, 1991, affirmed the compounding proceedings and held that the compounding fee of Rs. 1,00,000 was levied properly. Pages 279 to 283 of the assessment records contain the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. It is evident that the books of accounts and the returns submitted by the assesse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and exempted 80 per cent of the same. We are of the view that the estimate sustained by the Appellate Tribunal is only very minimal and no error in law has been committed by the Appellate Tribunal in sustaining the estimate to 1½ times the suppression detected and in exempting 80 per cent of the addition. 4.. The order of the Appellate Tribunal does not disclose any error of law. We dismis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X