TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the taxable turnover is hereby confirmed to the extent of ₹ 1,50,760 towards sales suppression ₹ 83,180 on the wrong claim of deduction, ₹ 4,461 with gross profit at 10 per cent on the turnover falling under section 7A. As regards penalty of section 12(3)(b)(ii), we confirm the consequential levy of penalty and uphold the same proportionate to the turnovers upheld. W.P. allowed in part. - W.P. No. 7591 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2007 - RAVIRAJA PANDIAN K. AND CHITRA VENKATARAMAN , JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was delivered by Mrs. CHTRA VENKATARAMAN J. This writ petition is filed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal dated April 25, 2003 in T.C. (R) No. 149 of 1999 confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the Appellate Assistant Commissioner sustained the addition to the turnover to the extent of 25 per cent on the estimated sales and thus re-determined the addition to the turnover at Rs. 1,63,760. He however confirmed the turnover under section 7A as well as on the claim of exemption at Rs. 83,180. Correspondingly, the appellate authority modified the penalty in tune with the relief granted. Aggrieved by the addition sustained, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue also preferred an enhancement petition seeking restoration of the order of the assessing authority. By order dated August 25, 1998, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal passed an order setting aside the order of the Appellate Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days would be uniform. He also placed reliance on the decision in T.C. No. 84 of 2000 dated April 11, 2000 as well as T.C. (R.) No. 149 of 1999 dated April 25, 2003 and the decision reported in [1989] 10 SISTC 77 (Sellakumar Talkies v. Board of Revenue (CT), Madras) in support of his contention that the suppression noticed on one day could not lead to an addition on presumption that everyday throughout the year would be uniform. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal confirming the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the enhancement petition filed by the Revenue and dismissing the appeal by the assessee. The learned Special Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r cent of the estimation made by the assessing officer. The Tribunal however referred to the decision in the case of a similar assessee and distinguished the same that the assessee could not let in satisfactory explanation for the variation in the sales noted on the inspection day. Hence, following the decision of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in T.C. No. 83 of 1998, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal restored the orders of the assessing officer. The Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal rejected the reliance placed on the decisions of this court reported in [1966] 17 STC 465 (SC) (State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty) and [1989] 10 SISTC 77 [Sellakumar Talkies v. Board of Revenue (CT), Madras] and confirmed the orders of the Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over-estimate or an under-estimate. But that is no ground for interfering with his best judgment . So long as there is a reasonable basis provided for by the materials seized to the estimation made and the materials seized warrant an estimate of the escaped turnover a best assessment judgment as such cannot be disturbed. Hence, the relevancy of materials and the nexus of the same to form a basis carry significance in the matter of assessing the correctness of the estimate made. Refer [2004] 134 STC 170 (Karn) (Kathyayini Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) and [2004] 135 STC 77 (SC) (Kathyayini Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes). In the case on hand, a perusal of the orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
