TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 954
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e sales per day had been suppressed and normal sales were not disclosed. (2) The gross profit of 33 per cent was found to be too low and the normal gross profits is adopted as 50 per cent. (3) Purchases of raw materials were not covered by bills. (4) Opening and closing stock inventories were not prepared and produced. 3. The Junior Research Officer conducted observation on March 6, 1990 and December 15, 1989. Having regard to the several defects it was proposed to reject the returns and accounts as incorrect and incomplete and to determine the total and taxable turnover according to the best of judgment assessment. The sales on December 15, 1989 was Rs. 3,514.75. The sales on March 6, 1990 was Rs. 1,900.15. The average per day worked ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turnover of Rs. 90,884, he held that it was excessive and he adopted one time addition, thus arriving a figure of Rs. 14,314. The total and taxable turnover therefore, came to Rs. 9,97,318 and being less than Rs. 10,00,000 he find no tax liability. The first appeal was therefore, allowed. 6. The Joint Commissioner by a notice dated July 13, 1992 found that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, had not even taken the purchases of coffee powder and he had to issue a rectification order on January 24, 1991. He therefore, proposed to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in so far as it related to section 7-A turnover. After perusing the objections filed by the appellant held that it was evident from the assessment file tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the points on which there was no suo motu revision and in respect of which the appellant had not filed any appeal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, Mr. N. Muralikumaran, cited a decision of the Supreme Court in (1997) 4 SCC 319 (Premier Fabricators v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd.) . 8. We are of the opinion that the provisions of the sales tax law do not admit of any such general observations as are available under the Arbitration Act. The sales tax law is based on precise interpretation and there is no scope for general argument. We do not therefore, accept the argument that the decision referred to above can be invoked in a case arising under the TNGST Act. 9.. Secondly, we also find that the ord....