High Court affirms lower authorities on assessments for 1985-86 and 1986-87, commission sales dispute, and normal loss claim.

The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities regarding assessments for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87, the dispute over commission sales of urid flour, and the claim of normal loss on cleaning and polishing. The Court found no error in rejecting the claims due to lack of evidence and dismissed the petitions challenging the Tribunal's order, concluding they were without merit.

---

---

Issues:
- Assessments for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87
- Rejection of returns filed by the assessee
- Estimation of total taxable turnover
- Dispute regarding commission sales of urid flour
- Claim of normal loss on cleaning and polishing
- Legality and perversity of the Tribunal's order

Assessments for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87:
The assessing authority completed assessments for the years in question by rejecting the returns filed by the assessee and estimating the total taxable turnover. Subsequently, the assessee approached the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for both years. The appellate authority affirmed the assessing authority's decision, particularly regarding the rejection of claims made by the assessee.

Dispute regarding commission sales of urid flour:
The appellate authority found that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support the claim of commission sales of urid flour sent to Palghat dealers. The assessing authority rejected the claim, stating that the goods were sent in 1985 but no evidence was presented to prove commission sales. The Appellate Tribunal concurred with the appellate authority's decision, leading to the rejection of the claim by the assessee.

Claim of normal loss on cleaning and polishing:
The assessee claimed 471 bags of urid, weighing 939.77 quintals, as normal loss on cleaning and polishing. However, the appellate authority and the Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide concrete evidence to substantiate this claim. Consequently, the claim of loss was rejected by both authorities.

Legality and perversity of the Tribunal's order:
The assessee challenged the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, questioning its legality and alleging perversity. The High Court observed that if an authority affirms the lower authority's order, detailed reasons need not be reproduced. The High Court reviewed the appellate authority's order and found no error in rejecting the claim of commission sales due to lack of evidence. Similarly, the claim of normal loss was dismissed for failure to substantiate the loss with evidence. The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, concluding that the petitions were without merit and dismissed them accordingly.

---