2002 (3) TMI 893

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order for holding a fresh assessment to determine the correct tax liability of the petitioner. 2.. It is the case of the petitioner that for the purpose of assessment of four quarters ending March 31, 1989 the petitioner produced all relevant documents, such as, declaration form, final accounts, etc., but the respondents rejected the books of account and enhanced the gross turnover from Rs. 32,86,43,195.86 to Rs. 42,00,00,000 on the ground of non-production of other books of accounts. He also disallowed the entire claim of labour charges and levied purchase tax as well as turnover tax and imposed penalty making additional demand for Rs. 1,32,00,656.40. 3.. An appeal was preferred before the respondent No. 2 challenging the following i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6.. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that arbitrary action was taken by the Board disallowing the claim for deduction of the sales effected from Ranchi and Vindhyachal though the relevant assessment order under the Bihar Sales Tax Act and the bills issued from Vindhyachal were filed before the Board. As a result, the Board did not consider the fact that the petitioner suffered double taxation and violated the provisions of section 5(2)(v) of the Act, 1941. By not deducting the labour charges, the Board has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction vested in it. It also refused to interfere with the disallowance of declaration form XIV although the statements in this connection were filed. The gross turnover was not properly determined ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....claims of the petitioner mainly were disallowed due to the non-production of the relevant documents and books of accounts. The appellate authority enhanced the gross turnover because the statements or returns filed were appeared to be vague and absurd and the petitioner also failed to produce the relevant books of accounts for verification. Moreover, some discrepancies were found in the annual report submitted on behalf of the petitioner where it was found that the appellant earned other revenue on account of profit on sale of fixed assets. The labour charges were disallowed on examination of the bills and sales register where the entire amount of the bill was shown as sale price. There was also discrepancy in the return with reference to t....