Turnover clubbing upheld where common premises and shared operations showed no independent taxable existence

Common premises, a shared kitchen and cash counter, and no convincing proof of separate commercial existence justified treating the hotel and sweet stall as one taxable unit. The Tribunal's finding that their turnover could be clubbed was based on appreciation of evidence and was treated as a factual determination. No perversity or substantial question of law was shown, so writ interference was unwarranted. The assessment clubbing the turnover was sustained and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the hotel and sweet stall were separate entities entitled to independent assessment of turnover, and whether the Tribunal's finding that their turnover could be clubbed called for interference.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the two concerns functioned independently or were, in substance, one business unit. The record showed common premises, common kitchen, common cash counter, absence of convincing evidence of complete operational separation, and no material establishing that the sweet stall had an independent commercial existence for tax purposes. The Court treated the matter as one of fact, noted that the Tribunal had appreciated the evidence and restored the assessment, and held that no perversity or question of law arose warranting writ interference.

Conclusion: The turnover clubbing was upheld and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessment treating the hotel and sweet stall as a single taxable unit was sustained, and the writ petitions were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence shows common business infrastructure and no reliable proof of independent functioning, the finding that two concerns are one taxable unit is a factual determination that will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction absent perversity or a substantial question of law.

---