TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (7) TMI 527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction against the proposal contained in the notice. Consequently, the assessing authority completed the assessment for the aforesaid year as proposed by it in the pre-assessment notice. While completing the assessment the officer has added a total turnover of Rs. 4,20,135 towards alleged omissions and suppressions which includes an estimated purchase turnover of Rs. 2,00,000. 2.. As against the aforesaid assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as S.T.A. No. (Apy) 737 of 1988. The first appellate authority by the order dated August 11, 1988 upheld the rejection of accounts. Further it deleted the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 made towards the purchase turnover. However, the remaining addition of Rs. 2,20,135 made by the assessing authority was confirmed. Both the assessee and Revenue being dissatisfied with the said order filed appeals before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also confirmed the rejection of accounts. However, the deletion of turnover of Rs. 2,00,000 made by the first appellate authority was set aside by the Tribunal and thus allowed the State appeal. While doing so, the Tribunal found the additions made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing an assessment order under best of judgment under the above provision. It has a definite purpose to perform. The receipt of pre-assessment notice by the assessee is the first available opportunity for him to file objection against the proposal to complete the assessment on best of judgment and to explain the defects pointed out in the accounts. Therefore, when the assessee has received this notice it is for him to file objections if the proposal is against him or to request for time to file the objection if there is any reason. In case the assessee after the receipt of the notice keeps silent by not filing the objection or not requesting further time in that behalf, the natural presumption is that assessee has no grievance against the proposal contained in the notice. 6.. The assessee has no case that he has not received the pre-assessment notice in this case. He has also no case that he has not been granted adequate time to file the objections. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has received the pre-assessment notice. No explanation is forthcoming from the assessee as to why he has not field the reply to the said notice. Even before the Appellate Assistant Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s provided in rule 33A which deals with safe custody and preservation of delivery note. Sub-rules (1) and (2) of the said rule which are relevant for the present purpose are extracted below: "(1) The delivery note in form 26 obtained from the assessing authority by a dealer shall be kept in safe custody and he shall be personally responsible for the loss, destruction or theft of any such note or the loss of revenue to Government, if any, resulting directly or indirectly from such theft, loss or destruction. (2) Every dealer to whom any delivery note is issued by an assessing authority shall maintain, in a register in form 19B, a true and complete account of every such note if any such note is lost, destroyed or stolen, the dealer shall report the fact to the assessing authority immediately, make appropriate entries in the remarks column of the said register and take such other steps to issue public notice of the loss, destruction or theft as the assessing authority may direct." The above sub-rules sufficiently provide the care and caution a dealer has to employ in having the custody of the delivery note and its use in the regular course of business transactions. In order t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. His case is that the transaction covered by delivery note No. 653220 dated March 29, 1986 was involved Rs. 22,500 and that was included in the addition of Rs. 2,20,135. Of course, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has deleted the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 which deletion has been severely challenged by the Government Pleader. As far as we could see the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 is an independent addition unconnected with the alleged omission and suppression. That was an addition obviously for the misuse of delivery notes obtained on March 15, 1985 bearing Serial Nos. 653201 to 653250. In order to pinpoint the misuse the officer has given an instance showing the use of the delivery note No. 653220 on March 29, 1986. 11.. The only question now remains is to find out whether there is any basis for further addition of Rs. 2,20,135. In addition to the suppression detected in relation to the delivery note No. 653220 dated March 29, 1986 the officer has pointed out two other unaccounted purchases involving the use of two delivery notes on March 10, 1986. The value of the coconuts involved in the unaccounted transport made on March 10, 1986 and M....