9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bill of lading No.15761610134 dated 07.06.2007. This was not accounted in the books of accounts. When the same was detected along with other defects, the assessee was issued with notice under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for brevity, 'the Act'] for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. 2. The subject bill of lading having been issued in the year 2007-2008, we restrict our consideration to that year alone, on which the revision is filed. The assessing officer finding the explanation to be unsatisfactory; added gross profit of 25% and the assessment proceeded with and concluded, making addition with respect to the purchase suppression alone. The assessee challenged it in appeal, which was rejected. Before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st contention raised by the assessee against the notice was that the assessee was a Nationalised Bank and they never carry out suppressions. We are unable to presume that a Bank would not carry out any suppression, merely because of its status of having been nationalised. The further submission of the assessee was that the goods received from the various branches on direct import to Kerala are transported to other branches by the Head Office. There is a centralised control of the activities in so far as the import and sale of gold. It is also stated that the transactions are carried out on the basis of delivery Chalans and vouchers received from various branches and concurrence by way of e-mail, hard copies etc. 6. If that be so, there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the First Appellate Authority. We find the order of the First Appellate Authority though non-speaking quite appropriate on the facts and circumstances as explained herein above. 8. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal had acted perversely in so far as deleting the addition when a clear suppression is found on the admission of the assessee itself. The assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of the KVAT Act and failed to account its import of gold, which admittedly was subsequently sold. There is nothing to substantiate the sale, from outside the State; of the very same goods imported. This can only be evidenced by documents evidencing the consignment of goods to the Head Office and the actual movement of the goods interstate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
