High Court partially allows revision against Sales Tax Tribunal's order for 1996-97 assessment year. Penalty upheld, addition for probable omission deleted.

The High Court partly allowed the revision against the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1996-97. The Court upheld the actual suppression assessment but found insufficient evidence for the equal addition for probable omission. It concluded that the penalty was justified based on admitted stock differences and suppression but deleted the addition for probable omission due to lack of evidence of habitual suppressed transactions. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, removing the addition equal to the actual suppression without imposing costs.

---

---

Issues: Revision against Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal order for assessment year 1996-97; Unaccounted inter-State purchases; Best judgment assessment; Appeal before Appellate Assistant Commissioner; Penalty levy confirmation; Appeal before Tribunal; Revision challenging Tribunal's order.

The judgment involves a revision against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1996-97. The petitioner's business premises were inspected, revealing unaccounted inter-State purchases and discrepancies in stock. The assessing officer made a best judgment assessment based on the actual suppression found. The assessee contended that the unaccounted purchases were subsequently recorded, but the officer found no proof of this. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the plea and confirmed the addition for probable omission. The Tribunal, considering the case merits, dismissed the appeal, leading to the present revision.

The petitioner argued that the Tribunal did not consider deleting the further addition. The High Court noted that while the actual suppression assessment was justified, the equal addition for probable omission required more substantial evidence. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty, considering the admitted stock difference and suppression. However, the Court found no grounds to support further addition for probable omission without evidence of habitual suppressed transactions. Consequently, the Court partly allowed the revision, deleting the addition equal to the actual suppression, without imposing costs.

---