TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (11) TMI 356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing common questions in both these cases to this Court for its opinion under section 44(1) of the Act: (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Officer was justified in law to make assessment under section 18(4)(d) when there was nothing wrong with the regular method of accounting employed by the applicant? (2) Whether the assessing officer was justified in basing his judgment on the facts pertaining to the subsequent year and not to the year under consideration for rejecting the gross turnover and taxable turnover disclosed by the applicant? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Officer was justified in making an addition of Rs. 5,88,110 to the gross turnover and taxa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee was dismissed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. Aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal which too was dismissed on 12th January, 1981. The Sales Tax Officer had also imposed penalty under section 43(1) of the Act on the assessee. The appeal and the second appeal against the order of imposition of penalty were also dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Tribunal. The assessee thereupon seems to have made two applications-one in the assessment proceedings and other in the penalty proceedings for referring certain questions to this Court for its opinion under section 44(1) of the Act and it is by order passed on those applications that the aforesaid questions have been refe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s which were seized in the raid on 6th December, 1975. For these reasons, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error in taking into consideration such of the books of accounts which were seized on 6th December, 1975, and were relevant to indicate that there was suppression of sales and purchases even during the assessment year in question, namely, 1973-74. 5.. It was then urged by the learned counsel for the assessee that at best it was a case of suppression of stock and not of suppression of sales and purchases. We find it difficult to agree with this submission either. The stock at hand constitutes the difference between the purchases and sales in so far as an assessee's dealing in purchases and sales of goods is concerned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000 on the basis of stock of Rs. 80,000 per copy. So there were five copies of stock books of different suppliers and the Sales Tax Officer had estimated suppression of sales worth Rs. 1,50,000 with regard to each copy. According to the Tribunal even though the fact that there were five copies of the stock book thus stood admitted by the assessee three of such copies were not produced by the assessee and that in these circumstances the Sales Tax Officer was justified in estimating the stock at Rs. 1,50,000 for each of the book. Moreover when an order of best judgment assessment is passed some amount of speculation is inevitable because in the very nature of things, it is not possible to arrive at a mathematical figure to determine the amoun....