2019 (7) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner was assessed under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act ( for short 'the KVAT Act') with respect to the year 2008-09 by making an addition to the sales turnover returned, on the basis that there occurred failure to account the entire value of goods received on stock transfer, when compared with the value reflected in 'Form-F' declarations. There were also additions made on account of other counts. When the proposal to complete the assessment was served on the assessee, they made repeated requests for granting time. The Assessing Authority found that, despite granting time on two occasions, the assessee failed to raise any objections against the proposal. Therefore by raising presumption that the assessee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... examination of the statement produced, the Tribunal found that the difference in the value of stock transfer noted in the Form-F declarations, when compared with the books of accounts, was not fully explained. Therefore the Tribunal found that the assessee had failed to reconcile the difference. Fact that the stock transfer value as per Form-F declaration is greater than the stock transfer value accounted, was specifically noted and the differences was found to be a sum of Rs. 2,45,99,012/-. Hence the Tribunal found that the difference in the stock transfer value will point out only to a suppression of the turnover. Hence the addition made, by adding 3.85% gross profit, was found to be justifiable. Accordingly the assessment order as well ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n intention of evasion of payment of tax due. In such case, the failure to reconcile the difference detected may at the most became a technical irregularity, which may attract penalisation under Section 67 of the Act. The above said aspect was not seen considered by the authorities at any stage. Learned Government Pleader contended that, there occurred a failure on the part of the Revision Petitioner to convince the authorities with supporting documents that there was no suppression with respect to the sale turnover declared, which they have failed to do. 7. Considering the rival contentions and on taking note of the fact that the Tribunal had remanded the matter for fresh assesment to be made on some other points, we think it appropriat....