Limited writ review over best judgment assessment where disputed turnover and accounts cannot be reappreciated in constitutional jurisdiction

Writ interference under Article 226 was found unwarranted where the assessee failed to maintain proper books and could not reconcile turnover with primary records, justifying rejection of accounts and a best judgment assessment. The revisional authority upheld the enhanced turnover and demand as supported by the record. The High Court stated that it would not act as an appellate forum to reappreciate evidence, resolve disputed facts, or reassess turnover, taxable turnover, tax rate, or interest in writ jurisdiction. It also noted that the Tribunal was the final appellate authority under the statutory scheme, so the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the revisional orders and the best judgment assessment made under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976.

Analysis: The assessee had failed to maintain the relevant books of account properly and could not reconcile the turnover with the sale registers, trading account figures, opening and closing stock, or other primary records. On that basis, the assessing authority rejected the accounts and made a best judgment assessment, which the revisional authority upheld after finding the enhanced turnover and consequential demand to be justified. The High Court held that it could not sit as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence, resolve disputed questions of fact, or re-examine the quantum of turnover, taxable turnover, rate of tax, and demand of interest in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It further held that the Tribunal was the final appellate authority under the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 226 was unwarranted, and the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed.

---