1975 (10) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he year 1968-69 the petitioner returned a gross and taxable turnover of Rs. 21,57,358.07. 3.. The Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, PaIghat, by his order dated 15th November, 1969, rejected the accounts and made an addition of Rs. 2,66,840 to the turnover declared. The grounds stated by the officer for rejecting the accounts are: (1) Certain discrepancies have been noticed in the stock at the inspections on 25th June, 1968, and 27th September, 1968, and (2) On interception of the petitioner's transport of goods in the current year as well as in the previous year, showed that the transport was without proper documents. The assessee contended that the difference in stock noticed at the time of the inspection on 25th June, 1968, was neglig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. The suppressions detected can be considered to cover only for 6 months. On this basis I reduce the estimation at 6 times of the suppressions calculated by the officer, i.e., the addition is reduced to Rs. 1,60,104. The taxable turnover will be calculated accordingly." The State preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. By order dated 28th February, 1974, the Tribunal held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in limiting the scope of the suppression to the first half of the year. The Tribunal stated as follows: "In the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the suppression actually detected can be considered only to cover 6 months for the reason that the inspection was in the middle of the year. As already p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The materials available to the Tribunal should have warranted an inference that the suppression detected on the two inspections indicated a pattern of continuous suppression which could well have extended over six months. The question is whether the Tribunal had materials to draw an inference as to a pattern of suppression of such duration. In the instant case, the suppression detected on the first occasion was negligible. The suppression on the second occasion was to the value of approximately Rs. 26,684. These two suppressions were detected in the course of three months. There was no further inspection to indicate suppression during any other period. The Tribunal, however, presumes that "if there had been another inspection in the course....