Best judgment assessment fails where accounted goods show no suppression and consequential penalty cannot stand.

Where the final fact-finding authority records that goods seized during vehicular check were already accounted for in the books and no suppression of purchases or sales is proved, a best judgment assessment cannot be sustained. On those factual findings, the consequential penalty also falls, because the apparent discrepancy in the documents does not by itself establish evasion or suppression. The Madras High Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion that the additional assessment and related penalty were not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no purchase suppression or sale suppression warranting the best judgment assessment, and in cancelling the consequential penalty.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded a factual finding that the goods detained during vehicular check had already been accounted for in the books of account and that the apparent discrepancy in the accompanying documents did not establish suppression of purchases or sales. It also noted that the goods had been ordered to be released on the basis that no material existed to show suppression. On those findings, the Tribunal set aside the additional assessment and the consequential penalty.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's conclusion on absence of suppression and cancellation of the assessment and penalty was upheld, and the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the final fact-finding authority records that the transaction was duly accounted for and no suppression of purchase or sale is proved, a best judgment assessment and consequential penalty cannot be sustained.

---