Equal time addition requires year-specific proof of suppression; probable omission and generic inspection findings are insufficient.

Equal time addition and consequential penalty under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 cannot be sustained without relevant material showing suppression of turnover or wilful nondisclosure for the assessment year in question. An estimation based only on inspection findings, probable omission, or materials from another period is insufficient where the assessment order lacks specific particulars such as seller identity, bill details, value, or transport records. A dealer's statement about non-maintenance of registers, without an admission of stock variation, does not by itself establish deliberate suppression. On that basis, the turnover addition and penalty were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the equal time addition and consequential penalty made under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could be sustained in the absence of material establishing suppression or wilful nondisclosure by the dealer.

Analysis: The additions were founded on inspection findings and an inference of probable omission for earlier assessment years. The assessment order did not contain specific particulars such as the seller's name, bill number, date, value of goods, or transport details, and no material was furnished to show deliberate suppression of turnover for the years under assessment. The Court also noted that the assessee's statement was limited to non-maintenance of purchase and sales registers and did not amount to an admission of stock variation. In the absence of supporting material, the estimation of turnover on the basis of probable omission was held to be unsustainable. The reasoning was consistent with the principle that materials from another period cannot, without more, justify an addition for the relevant assessment year.

Conclusion: The equal time addition and penalty could not be sustained, and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An equal time addition based on probable omission cannot be upheld unless the revenue establishes, with relevant material for the assessment year in question, suppression of turnover or wilful nondisclosure.

---