TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 962
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17,74,009.59 (rupees seventeen lakhs seventy four thousand nine and fifty nine paise), respectively for the assessment year 2001-02. According to the respondents the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence) II South Zone, Bangalore, inspected the premises of the appellant on November 22, 2002 and certain books of account and other documents pertaining to the business of the appellant were verified for the assessment years between 1998-99 to 2002-03. After inspecting the business premises of the appellant, the assessing authority took up the final assessment proceedings for the year 2001-02 and issued a pre-assessment notice on January 15, 2005 proposing to disallow the deductions claimed by the appellant under rule 6(4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... intelligence authorities as well as turnover voluntarily reported by the assessee before the jurisdictional assessing authority in the monthly reports and so also in the revised returns filed by the assessee was substantially same without any variation. Therefore, the appellate authority was satisfied that there was no concealment of any transaction by the appellant-assessee and all the transactions were reflected in the books of account and the same deserves to be accepted. Coming to the controversy raised before the appellate authority, the appellate authority on consideration of records was satisfied that certain goods purchased by the assessee like plywood, glass and other hardware items were brought directly to the work site and so f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the appellate authority. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone 1 invoking powers under section 22A(1) of the KST Act, 1957 initiated suo motu proceedings and issued notice to the present appellant-assessee after narrating the entire facts including the important portions of the observations made by the first appellate authority and restored the order of assessment with penalty in accordance with observations made by him. As a matter of fact except repeating the observations of the assessing authority no independent reasons were given by the revisional authority. Aggrieved by this order of the revisional authority, the present appeal is filed. Following questions of law arises for consideration: (a) Whether, in facts and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evisional authorities were not justified in not placing reliance on those documents and in the absence of any material disclosing that the purchases made outside the State being brought into the local area for his business in the local area, there was no justification for the assessing authority and the revisional authority to include those amounts in the turnover of the appellant-assessee. As against these, the learned Government Advocate submits, though the business of the appellant-assessee was in existence right from 1998, only in the year 2001 when there was inspection by intelligence wing of the Department, the actual nature of the business and the amounts involved in the business came to light. From the arguments across the Bar, it....