1993 (1) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee were accepted, in which besides other items, sale of gur was assessed on a turnover of Rs. 3,17,801.24. Although copy of the assessment order is not available on the record of this revision but from other materials it seems that the assessment proceeded on the assumption that the assessee had paid Rs. 3,630.91 as mandi fee during the year in question. Subsequent to the initial assessment an information was received by the assessing officer that the mandi fee paid during the year was an amount of Rs. 7,797.63 which was paid in three parts and not the amount of Rs. 3,630.91. Certain other information was also received in respect of two other items. As initiation of the proceedings under section 21 of the Act is not under challenge, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....77 or the total payment of Rs. 7,797.63. The case of the assessee is that although the payment of Rs. 4,166.77 was made on April 30, 1983, i.e., during the year in question, but it pertained to transactions of immediately preceding year, as would be evident from the certificate of the mandi samiti, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 4 to this revision. This certificate was also placed before the Sales Tax Tribunal who has made a mention of it in its order. The Sales Tax Tribunal discarded the certificate of mandi samiti as unreliable by saying that the yearly details of mandi fee is not related to the financial year and as the assessee has not disputed the payment on April 30, 1983 of Rs. 4,166.77, the assessment had to be made taki....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r than to discard the evidence on surmises and conjectures. As observed earlier, there is nothing in the certificate of the mandi samiti (annexure 4 to the revision) to suggest that the payment of mandi fee indicated therein was not on the basis of financial year. On the contrary, the certificate refers to the payment of Rs. 4,166.77 on April 30, 1983, as the balance amount of the year 1982-83. If that be the correct factual position, it is difficult to say that the result of the appeal may not have varied. In the assessment order, as well as in the appellate order there is no discussion about the certificate in question and no assistance is available from the said orders. Since the Tribunal had not considered the matter in its right perspe....