TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 1354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see-firm started business in gold in August, 1992. The business place of the assessee was inspected by the Intelligence Squad, Calicut on November 28, 1992 and noticed certain stock difference. The assessee conceded sales turnover of Rs. 1,53,28,289 for the year 1992-93. But the books of accounts were rejected and assessment for the year 1992-93 was completed as per proceedings dated November 30, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as annexure C. Thus, suppression of purchase and sales turnover detected at the time of inspection of the business place of the assessee on November 28, 1992 was specifically considered by the assessing authority at the time of completion of the original assessment. 3.. The Deputy Commissioner issued notice under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. In the notice, it is stated th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r's appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed. 4.. The question before us was whether annexure B issued under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is valid or not. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that his client had informed the income-tax people about the additional income of Rs. 1,50,000 during the assessment year 1993-94 corresponding to the previous year 1992-93 on the basis o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he power exercised by the Deputy Commissioner was illegal. In this case also, the same question arises. Since already this has been considered by the assessing authority and the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that it was not proper on the part of the Deputy Commissioner to invoke his power under section 35(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. 6.. In the above view of the matter, we a....