TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (7) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear (till March 30, 1988). It bid in auction, arrack shops in Group No. IV of the Chalakudy Range for Rs. 33 lakhs. The Intelligence Squad (of Sales Tax) conducted a surprise inspection of the business place of the assessee and also the office of the assessee's accountant at Angamaly. The inspection reports are Nos. 07143 and 07144 dated March 7, 1988. Many books and papers were recovered during the said inspection. The books so recovered related to the assessee's business. They are day-books for the period from March 3, 1987 to January 2, 1988 and January 2, 1988 to March 3, 1988, ledger for 1987-88 in two volumes, trial balance for the period from 1987 to February, 1988 and daily statement from March 3, 1988 to March 5, 1988, daily stock ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated March 30, 1988, the turnover for the year up to March 30, 1988, was shown as Rs. 52,50,000. Form 8 return for the period ending March 31, 1988, was filed on January 31, 1989. It disclosed the total turnover at Rs. 46,90,700 and exemption was claimed on the entire turnover. Certain books were also produced for verification. As per the books of accounts 48,840 litres of arrack have been purchased and the purchase price was shown as Rs. 6,94,005.80. The said quantity was sold for Rs. 46,90,700. Exemption was claimed on the entire turnover as second sales. The sales were not supported by bills or any records of original entry. In the meanwhile, the account books and other documents seized were returned to the assessee on August 2, 1988. D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concluded that the matter deserves a remit to the lower authorities for making detailed investigations and to pass a well-considered speaking order. However, on the basis of some of the books and documents discussed by it, the Tribunal fixed the ratio between the tax suffered purchases and not suffered purchases of arrack in the proportion of 41:10. In other words, the order of remit was hedged in by limitation. It is thereafter, aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated September 8, 1989, the State has come up in revision. 2.. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Senior Government PleaderSri N.N. Divakaran Pillai, as also counsel for the respondent/assessee Mr. N.D. Premachandaran. Counsel for the Revenue produced before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8, was admitted. But, it was stated that the compounding by paying rupees one lakh was done on the assurance that no further amount will be payable. The quantum proposed is objected to. The assessee did not produce nor did they offer any explanation for non-production of the accounts and other documents seized during the surprise inspection on March 7, 1988 and returned to the assessee on August 2, 1988. These facts, which are admitted or proved and discernible from the files stand out prominent. On the basis of these facts and other circumstances, the assessing authority fixed the taxable turnover at Rs. 54,08,070. A tax of Rs. 27,61,387 and a surcharge of Rs. 1,84,099 was levied besides interest. The assessing authority, on the above fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not suffered purchases of arrack should be in the proportion of 41: 10. We are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal totally ignored to give effect to vital facts and overstressed immaterial factors. The offence of failure to keep true and complete accounts, to take out registration and file returns, etc., were compounded in the sum of rupees one lakh, that the assessee himself admitted the same in his statement and in the application filed for compounding, that the compounding fee was remitted and a good number of account books, day-books and documents which were admittedly seized on March 7, 1988 were returned to the assessee on August 2, 1988, but they were never produced before the assessing authority, etc., were totally ignored by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oks of accounts are acceptable, the further question arises with regard to the quantum of estimate. The assessing authority called for the books of accounts and other documents, which were seized by the Intelligence Squad and returned to the assessee on August 2, 1988. But, those documents were not produced before the assessing authority. The assessee had no case, at any time, that the books and other documents seized from his shop and that of the Accountant on March 7, 1988 and returned to the assessee on August 2, 1988, were produced before the assessing authority or before the appellate authority. The Appellate Tribunal failed to advert to the above vital aspects. On these premises, how far the plea of the assessee assailing the estimate....