Estimated sales addition cannot stand without a clear link between seized slips and the relevant assessment period.

Further estimated addition based on slips recovered during inspection could not be sustained where the slips bore no specific dates and were not linked to any particular assessment period. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had already sustained the actual suppression but deleted the additional estimation and cancelled the stock-discrepancy addition, and the revisional authority failed to identify any concrete material basis for restoring them. Mere disagreement with the appellate findings was insufficient to justify fresh estimation or penalty under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Madras HC therefore set aside the revisional order and restored the appellate order in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Joint Commissioner was justified in restoring the estimated addition and penalty based on slips recovered during inspection and stock discrepancy, after the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had deleted the further estimation.

Analysis: The assessment had proceeded on actual suppression, estimated sales of stainless steel vessels and scraps, and penalty under Section 12(3)(b)(v) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner sustained the actual suppression but deleted the further estimation, noting that the slips recovered did not bear specific dates and could not be fixed to any particular period, and also cancelled the addition on stock discrepancy. In revision, the Joint Commissioner did not identify any specific period or material basis to connect the slips with the assessment year, but merely expressed disagreement with the appellate findings. In the absence of such specific basis, the further addition by way of estimation could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The Joint Commissioner's order was set aside and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was restored. The appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---