TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 593
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of business of the petitioner was inspected on January 4, 1993 and stock discrepancy to the tune of Rs. 80,913 was allegedly noticed at the time of inspection. Treating the said turnover as suppression, the petitioner was finally assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,16,79,776 and Rs. 17,38,439, respectively, as per proceedings, dated September 26, 1994. The assessment was completed after verification of the books of accounts and the account books was also signed on June 28, 1994. Subsequently, the second respondent held that the petitioner had furnished opening stock of Rs. 15,42,750 at the time of final check of accounts and had accordingly arrived at a deficit stock discrepancy of Rs. 12,04,829. The petitioner was accordingly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... documents, that the accounts maintained by them were correct and true. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the relief as stated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sales tax authorities should have either accepted the findings of inspection or rejected the same in entirety and it is not open to them to accept only those findings which are favourable to the Department and reject the contrary findings, which are in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that since the stock available as per books of account was more than the actual physical stock available at the time of inspection, it should be construed that the petitioner was not able to prove the physical....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the writ jurisdiction. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's place of business was inspected by the enforcement officers on January 4, 1993 and they detected a stock variation for Rs. 80,913, by adopting the opening stock as on April 1, 1992 for Rs. 4,18,834. Subsequently, the assessing officer noticed that the petitioner furnished the opening stock as on April, 1 1992 as Rs. 15,42,750 at the time of final check of accounts. Hence, the assessing officer had arrived at stock difference at Rs. 12,04,829, by adopting open stock value at Rs. 15,42,750 as on April 1, 1992, by adding gross profit at ten per cent and estimated the sales s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was due to incorrect stock verification. The appellate authority, taking into consideration of entire fact situation and the details such as opening stock, purchases, freight charges incurred, labour charges paid and physical stock for arriving at an excess stock, deleted the equal-time addition. Whereas, in the instant case, on perusal of records, the assessing authority had arrived at the actual suppression on the ground that there is a mala fide intention of the petitioner to suppress the factual figures by furnishing two different opening stocks at different points of time as stated above. Further, even though the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to produce the bills to show that their accounts are correct, they failed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the books of account produced by the dealer. Later on, the inspection conducted by the enforcement wing officials on January 4, 2003, a stock difference of Rs. 80,913 was found by adopting the opening stock at Rs. 4,18,834. Again with reference to the opening stock as on April 1, 1992, furnished to the assessing officer by the dealer, it was found that the petitioner had suppressed certain turnover by declaring two different opening stocks. In Binani Industries Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, VI Circle, Bangalore reported in [2007] 6 VST 783 (SC), there was merely a change of opinion and therefore, on facts of the above case, this court was pleased to accept the contention of the dealer therein. But in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al and the Tribunal held that the assessee was holding Government securities as investments and not as stock-in-trade and allowed the Department's appeals. For the earlier assessment years, the Revenue had accepted the plea of the assessee that the Government securities held by them were stock-in-trade and the previous assessment orders reached its finality. There was no change of method of accounting of the securities for the earlier assessment years. But for the later assessment years, viz., 198586 and 1986-87, the Tribunal held that the Government securities held by the assessee as capital assets. In these circumstances, the Division Bench of this court held that the Tribunal was not justified in not following the orders of the Tribu....