TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (11) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....187. The appellate authority found that the books of account cannot be rejected on the ground that the bills were not produced and that it is practically not possible to maintain small sales bill issued to the customers and that the appellant is maintaining daily sales register in a proper manner and that the rejection of the entire books of accounts is not proper. The appellate authority also found that the two days of inspection which were taken into account were, days prior to Independence Day and the shandy day at Namakkal, when the floating population is high and consequently, sales will also be high. As regards the turnover estimated under section 7A, the assessing authority deleted the purchase turnover of kerosene and as regards goundnut oil, ghee, vanaspathy and coffee powder, sustained the turnover assessed by the assessing officer which was Rs. 2,95,185. The assessing officer found that the kind of understatement of actual daily sales through records was never deducted in this case, and "further, no purchase or sales suppression was found . . . was only the total sale for those days which had duly shown in their total accounts. What was found by them as total sales for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to Independence Day were rush days and consequently, sales on those days will normally be higher than the regular day sales and sales on those exceptional days should not be taken into account as sale on regular normal days. He has referred to Punjab Gun House v. State of Punjab [1985] 58 STC 299 (P&H). The learned senior counsel also referred to Hotel Vallalar v. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai [2008] 15 VST 516 (Mad). In Hotel Vallalar v. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai [2008] 15 VST 516, this court had held, referring to State of Tamil Nadu v. New Kamaliya Hotel [2006] 147 STC 111 that "mere one day sales could not be attributed to estimate the whole year without considering the festival season, rainy season and other calamities" and that the sales may differ from auspicious day and inauspicious day and may not be uniform throughout the year and that if the result of one day sales is supported by other materials like non-maintenance of stock account or regular maintenance account or defective incomplete accounts, other incriminating materials available to support such a finding, then, no exception could be taken on an estimati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant bills and the accounts also were not found to be properly maintained. On the basis of this material, the Commercial Tax Officer made an estimate of purchases and sales undertaken by the petitioner during the year and consequently, sales tax was levied, after computing the suppressed sales and purchases. These findings are based on relevant evidence and cannot be interfered with. The Tribunal was justified in relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali [1973] 32 STC 77 and in holding that on the basis of one day's inspection where the suppressed sales could be detected, estimate could be made for the whole year. 2.. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a decision of this Court in Padmavathi Paddy and Rice Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1971] 27 STC 30 (AP) for the proposition that some other evidence is required in addition to what was found on a day's inspection, is of no avail for two reasons. Firstly, the Supreme Court's decision (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali [1973] 32 STC 77) on the point squarely applies to the case on hand and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of revision to have dealt with the objections raised by the assessees and also consider whether or not the discretion had been properly exercised by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Joint Commissioner did not advert to those aspects at all and only after recording a finding that the suo motu powers of revision could be exercised by him in the facts and circumstances of the case, against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That is clearly erroneous and the order of the Joint Commissioner on that aspect cannot be sustained and we have to set it aside to the extent indicated above." Again in V. Ramasamy & Brothers v. State of Tamil Nadu [1994] 93 STC 42 (Mad), the Division Bench frowned on what they held was exercise of power of revision in a casual manner and referred to Avon Plastics v. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] 49 STC 268 (Mad) wherein it was held as follows (page 45 of 93 STC): ". . . The power of suo motu revision by the Board of Revenue under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is not intended to be exercised in a routine or c....