Best judgment assessment and remand limits: prior opportunity defeats challenge, while arbitrary turnover caps on remand are impermissible.

A best judgment assessment under section 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 could not be attacked for want of opportunity where the record showed that several opportunities had already been given to the assessee before the ex parte assessment. The principle that no fact should be presumed without notice did not assist the assessee on those facts. On remand, however, the Tribunal could not impose a turnover rider of Rs. 35,00,000 when the matter was sent back for verification of the original documents and fresh computation of tax liability, since the remand required an unrestricted fresh determination on the relevant material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the best judgment assessment could be challenged on the ground that no opportunity had been given to the assessee to prove its case under section 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948; (ii) Whether, while remanding the matter, the Tribunal was justified in fixing a turnover rider at Rs. 35,00,000.

Issue (i): Whether the best judgment assessment could be challenged on the ground that no opportunity had been given to the assessee to prove its case under section 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The record showed that several opportunities had been granted to the assessee before the ex parte assessment was made. The grievance that no opportunity was given was therefore contrary to the record. The earlier decision relied upon by the assessee only lays down that a fact cannot be presumed without notice or opportunity, but that principle did not assist the assessee where opportunity had in fact been afforded.

Conclusion: The challenge based on want of opportunity failed and was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether, while remanding the matter, the Tribunal was justified in fixing a turnover rider at Rs. 35,00,000.

Analysis: The Tribunal had remanded the matter for verification of the authenticity of the original documents and for fresh working out of tax liability. In that situation, and particularly where exports were substantial, it was not proper to impose a rider fixing the turnover at Rs. 35,00,000, because the remand was meant to enable a fresh determination on the relevant material.

Conclusion: The rider was unjustified and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision did not succeed on the principal challenge, but the Tribunal's turnover rider on remand was set aside, leaving the fresh determination to be made without that restriction.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand for fresh verification and recomputation should not be fettered by an arbitrary turnover cap unless the record justifies such a restriction; however, a challenge to best judgment assessment fails where adequate opportunity was already afforded.

---