TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses, there was an inspection by the Intelligence Wing of the Sales Tax Department in the business premises of both the petitioners during the relevant year and in the course of inspection, variation of physical stock with accounts was noticed. Both the petitioners admitted the incorrectness and incompleteness of the accounts and compounded the offence by paying the compounding fee and avoided prosecution. While the compounding fee paid by the petitioner in T.R.C. No. 237 of 1999 for the assessment year 1988-89 was Rs. 44,300, the compounding fee paid by the petitioner in T. R.C. No. 392 of 1998 was only Rs. 500. Since both the petitioners admitted non-maintenance of proper accounts in the course of inspection and paid compounding fee, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench deleting that part of the Full Bench judgment dealing with the correctness or otherwise of the decision of this court in Lovely Thomas's case [1999] 113 STC 505. Thereafter, the Full Bench remitted the T.R.Cs. for decision by the Division Bench. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The contention raised by counsel appearing for both the petitioners is that the petitioners were admittedly engaged in liquor trade source of which was from Government distilleries and from Government distribution shop. Therefore, according to them, even though accounts were not properly maintained and shortage or excess in the quantity of liquor was detected in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., distribution and sale of illicit and unauthorised liquor are done in the most clandestine manner. Even though this is the ground reality, unfortunately these facts were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench which led to this court casting burden on the Sales Tax Department to prove unaccounted purchase and sale of liquor to make addition to the turnover. Since the judgment of the Division Bench is confirmed by the Supreme Court, though not through a speaking judgment, but after notice in S.L.P., we do not want to go into the correctness of what is held by the Division Bench. However, we do not find the facts based on which the Lovely Thomas's case [1999] 113 STC 505 was decided applies to the facts of the petitioners' case becau....