https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166388 Where a pre-search sample purchase and corresponding seized slips show a pattern of unaccounted sales, the dealer bears the burden of proving that the slip entries were already recorded in the regular books; failing that, the slips may be relied on as evidence of suppressed turnover. The dealer's explanation that a disputed transaction represented a loan was rejected because it was not reflected in the audited accounts or balance sheet and was contradicted by the dealer's own records. On that basis, the addition for suppressed sales was upheld, and maximum penalty under the Kerala VAT Act was not reduced in the absence of voluntary acceptance or remittance of the suppression. en-us Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166388 Where a pre-search sample purchase and corresponding seized slips show a pattern of unaccounted sales, the dealer bears the burden of proving that the slip entries were already recorded in the regular books; failing that, the slips may be relied on as evidence of suppressed turnover. The dealer's explanation that a disputed transaction represented a loan was rejected because it was not reflected in the audited accounts or balance sheet and was contradicted by the dealer's own records. On that basis, the addition for suppressed sales was upheld, and maximum penalty under the Kerala VAT Act was not reduced in the absence of voluntary acceptance or remittance of the suppression. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166388