Seized slips and burden of proof sustain suppressed turnover addition and penalty where dealer fails to explain unaccounted sales.

Where a pre-search sample purchase and corresponding seized slips show a pattern of unaccounted sales, the dealer bears the burden of proving that the slip entries were already recorded in the regular books; failing that, the slips may be relied on as evidence of suppressed turnover. The dealer's explanation that a disputed transaction represented a loan was rejected because it was not reflected in the audited accounts or balance sheet and was contradicted by the dealer's own records. On that basis, the addition for suppressed sales was upheld, and maximum penalty under the Kerala VAT Act was not reduced in the absence of voluntary acceptance or remittance of the suppression.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the burden of proving that the seized slips did not evidence unaccounted sales lay on the dealer. (ii) Whether the addition made on the basis of the seized slips, including the disputed transaction of Rs. 10,12,507, was sustainable. (iii) Whether the maximum penalty levied under section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 called for reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the burden of proving that the seized slips did not evidence unaccounted sales lay on the dealer.

Analysis: The Department made a sample purchase through an intelligence officer immediately before the search and recovered a corresponding slip from the business premises, thereby establishing the dealer's practice of making unaccounted sales by issuing slips instead of invoices. Once that pattern was established, it was for the dealer to show that the entries in the seized slips had been accounted for in the regular books. No such proof was furnished.

Conclusion: The burden was rightly cast on the dealer, and the slips were properly treated as evidence of unaccounted sales.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition made on the basis of the seized slips, including the disputed transaction of Rs. 10,12,507, was sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the challenge to the seized slips in detail and rejected the dealer's explanation. The specific transaction claimed to be a loan from M/s. Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. was not reflected as such in the audited accounts and balance sheet, and the claim stood disproved by the dealer's own records. The materials supported the inference that the transaction represented suppressed sales turnover.

Conclusion: The addition based on the seized slips was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the maximum penalty levied under section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 called for reduction.

Analysis: Reduction of penalty was not warranted because the dealer continued to contest the suppression even in assessment proceedings and had not accepted the suppressed turnover for assessment or tax payment. In the absence of voluntary acceptance or remittance of the suppressed turnover, no mitigating basis existed to reduce the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was not liable to be reduced.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the penalty order sustained by the Tribunal remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Department establishes a pattern of unaccounted sales through a pre-search sample purchase and seizure of corresponding slips, the dealer must explain and prove that the entries were accounted for in the regular books; failing that, the seized slips may be relied on to sustain suppression and penalty.

---