TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified in exercising the powers under the provisions of Section 64(1) of the KVAT Act, 1964. The order passed by the Revisional Authority is in accordance with law. The appellant has not made out any case to interfere with the revision order passed by the 1st respondent - petition dismissed. - STA No.100001 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2018 - MR. B. VEERAPPA AND MR. H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD JJ. APPELLANT (BY SRI S.D. BABLADI, ADV., FOR SRI H.R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADV., FOR APPELLANT) RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS) JUDGMENT B.VEERAPPA J., The present Sales Tax Appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.01.2018 made in Order bearing No.TNO322/2014-18 ADCOM/ZONEII/ DWD/SMR/CR-41/2016-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing discrepancies: i) The physical stock of goods held at the time of inspection is at ₹ 48,24,417-00 ii) The appellant has purchased arecanut at ₹ 41,61,553-00 during the assessment year on the strength of e-sugam, but not accounted for in the purchase register. iii) The appellant purchased tobacco products like cigarettes and gutkha using e-sugam at ₹ 9,17,375-00 but not accounted for in the books of accounts. iv) The appellant purchased gutkha from outside the state on e-sugam at ₹ 3,69,280-00 but accounted only ₹ 2,69,280-00 and thus suppressed the said goods at ₹ 1,00,000-00. Thus suppressed purchase of goods and has calculated the sales turnover and tax liability by to for an am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tax Appeal is filed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri. S.D. Babladi, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the order passed by the Revisional Authority/1st respondent is erroneous and contrary to the material. There was no error in the order passed by the 2nd respondent- Appellate Authority. He would further contend that the 2nd respondent, in the facts and circumstances of the case, justified in reducing the turnover from two times to one time but the Revisional Authority added one more time of suppressed turnover. The 2nd respondent was justified in reducing the excessive turnover. The Revisional Authority ought not to have invoked suomuto revisional proceedings. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has not disputed the suppression of the accounts while submitting the inspection records. Original Authority, considering the entire material on record in a proper perspective, passed an order under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act read with Rule 46 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The Appellate Authority while setting aside the order passed by the Original Authority has not taken into consideration the suppression noticed by the inspecting authority. Therefore, the Appellate Authority was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Original Authority, which was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the Revisional Authority rightly exercised suo-muto revisional proceedings under the provisions of section 64(1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gth of e sugama, but not accounted for in the purchase register. You have purchased tobacco products l ike cigarettes and gutkha using e sugams at ₹ 9,17,375-00 but you have not accounted for in the books of accounts. You have purchased gutkha from outside the state on e sugama at ₹ 3,69,280-00 but you have accounted only ₹ 2,69,280-00. Thus you have suppressed the said goods at ₹ 1,00,000-00. 12. Based on the said suppression, the order came to be passed by the Original Authority under Section 39(1) read with Rule 46 of the KVAT Act on 01.01.2013. 13. Though the appeal came to be filed before the Appellate Authority by the Assessee, the Appellate Authority mainly relying upon the statement made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detection of suppression of turnover by adding twice the amount of suppression detected cannot be held as without rational basis . 15. The Revisional Authority after recording the finding that, had it not been inspected the unaccounted purchases and excess stock as noticed by the inspecting authority would have gone unnoticed. The estimation at two times of the suppressed sales of areca nut, tobacco products, and also on the value of excess stock by prescribed authority is found to be in order. The Appellate Authority has not considered the materials and set aside the order passed by the assessing authority, which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and which warrants revisional proceedings under the provision of Section 64(1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
