TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (8) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee. The revision petitioner-assessee is a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1985-86. 2.. The assessee returned a turnover of Rs. 9,85,259.02. He claimed exemption therefor. The returns and the accounts were rejected by the assessing authority. The order of assessment is dated March 17, 1987. The assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cent to the taxable turnover conceded. The assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeals from the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner dated March 14, 1988 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The Tribunal disposed of the matter by a common order dated February 26, 1991. The Appellate Tribunal adverted to the stock discrepancies found out on inspection conducted on J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted on January 16, 1986 and stock discrepancies in new gold ornaments and old gold were found out. There was no purchase of copper during the year. The Appellate Tribunal noticed that the difference in stock is 18 gms. in new ornaments and 4,400 gms. in old gold ornaments and the difference is not negligible. A penalty was imposed for the irregularities found out during the inspection. On these p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority. In this case, the assessing authority added 10 per cent towards probable omissions and suppressions. The first appellate authority reduced it to 5 per cent. It was on the ground that the alleged stock variation on the day of inspection covers more than 9½ months of the year of assessment. The Appellate Tribunal held that in the case of a jeweller, if the inspection is within the....