Best judgment assessment and sales tax penalty: penalty needs independent proof of undisclosed turnover, not just an assessment.

Best judgment assessment may be sustained where the assessee fails to maintain trading records, produce accounts, or explain bank remittances, and where the available materials support the assessing authority's conclusions. Penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is not automatic on such an assessment; it requires an independent finding that taxable turnover existed and was deliberately not disclosed, on proof stronger than that needed for assessment. Where the penalty issue is left without such a finding, the matter must be reconsidered afresh after hearing both sides.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the best judgment assessment made on the basis of bank remittances and absence of books of account was liable to be interfered with; (ii) Whether penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be sustained without a specific finding that the conditions for its levy were made out.

Issue (i): Whether the best judgment assessment made on the basis of bank remittances and absence of books of account was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The assessee had not maintained relevant trading records, had not produced returns or accounts despite opportunities, and offered no satisfactory explanation for large bank remittances found during inspection. The assessing authority therefore proceeded on best judgment basis from the available materials. The revisional court found that the factual findings of the authorities below were supported by the seized records and bank extracts, and that no error was shown in the assessment process.

Conclusion: The best judgment assessment was upheld and no interference was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be sustained without a specific finding that the conditions for its levy were made out.

Analysis: Penalty under section 12(3) is not an automatic consequence of a best judgment assessment. It requires an independent judicial determination that actual turnover existed and was not disclosed, with a degree of proof higher than that required for assessment. The Tribunal had not dealt with the assessee's challenge to penalty and had recorded no finding on the existence of grounds for levy.

Conclusion: The penalty order could not be sustained and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on penalty after hearing both sides.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was affirmed, but the penalty component was set aside and sent back for reconsideration, resulting in only partial success for the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under the sales tax law cannot be imposed merely because a best judgment assessment has been made; the authority must independently determine, on adequate proof, that taxable turnover existed and was deliberately not disclosed.

---