TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (1) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 4,65,740.50 and Rs. 3,44,098.67 respectively. The assessing authority, after verification of the books of account, determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 17,83,281.48 under section 12(3) of the Sales Tax Act. In the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore, the assessee disputed the addition of purchase turnover of groundnuts worth Rs. 3,18,600 and the levy of penalty of Rs. 750 thereon. The assessee's appeal was dismissed and the further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal met with the same fate. 3.. The only question for our consideration in this petition is the addition of the turnover of Rs. 3,18,600 being the suppressed turnover for the year 197273. This represented the turno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uts to seeds. Out of this, you have accounted only 4,798 bags; thus 7,965 bags are not accounted. The value of unaccounted groundnuts at Rs. 40 per bag (prevailing market rate) works out to Rs. 3,18,600. I propose to add this as purchase value to your assessment and levy tax under section 5(4) of the Act. You are also liable for penalty under section 12(4) of the Act. I propose to levy a penalty of Rs. 750 under section 12(4) of the Act." 4.. It is the contention of the assessee that the notice does not disclose full particulars for an effective reply and the information gathered from the books seized by the Vigilance Officer who raided the premises of a third party could not have been relied upon without bringing it on record in the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner, without affording an effective opportunity to cross-examine those persons who are supposed to have maintained the secret accounts and from whom they have been discovered." In Ramchandra Oil Mills v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay [1977] 39 STC 493 at 494 and 495, the Bombay High Court observed: "The question which we are called upon to consider in this case is whether there was any material on record on which it could be held that the assessees had suppressed any sales to the Bombay dealer. It is common ground that the only material before the said Sales Tax Officer as well as the Tribunal, on which reliance has been sought to be placed for coming to the conclusion that the assessees had suppressed sales, was the informa....