TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....618 of 2002, the petitioner / assessee has come up with this writ petition. 2.The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is a dealer in hides and skins and a registered dealer on the file of the first respondent. For the assessment year 1992-93, they reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 35,52,710/- and Rs. 1,57,737/-. Admittedly, raw hides and skins was taxable at the point of last purchase during the relevant period. There was an inspection of the petitioner's place of business on 27.02.1993. During the course of such inspection, certain defects were noticed and a best judgment assessment was made by the assessing officer on 30.05.1994, determining the total and taxable turnover of Rs. 63,26,814/- and Rs. 23,6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring the relevant assessment year. (b) Whether the order of the Tribunal restoring the levy of tax on the stock variation noticed during the inspection, while rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner that the stock discrepancy was only in view of the fact that they had reported excess stock to the Bank for availing credit facilities, is sustainable. 4.To answer the aforesaid questions, it may be relevant to point out the findings of the Tribunal in the order impugned herein, which are as follows: 4.1 The assessee claims to have sold raw hides and skins to the 7 registered dealers. However, it is not in dispute that in respect of the raw skins alleged to have been sold to the 7 registered dealers, there was no payment receive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ser, by rejecting their claim of having effected sale of raw skins to the 7 registered dealers merely on the ground that they have re-purchased the tanned hides and skins and that, the factum of the petitioner having paid the tanning charges would also not provide any basis to reject the claim of sale made by the petitioner to the 7 registered dealers. Similarly, the levy of tax on the alleged stock variation, overlooking the explanation offered by the petitioner that they had shown inflated stock only for the purpose of availing credit facilities, is also unsustainable. 6.On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondents that the order of the Tribunal on both the aspects as re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that they had shown inflated stock to avail credit facilities from the bank, as unacceptable, again does not give rise to any question of law. 8.Thus, the above issues are essentially question of facts and the same do not give rise to any question of law warranting interference at the hands of this court. In this regard, it may be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Metroark Ltd. v. CCE [(2004) 12 SCC 505], wherein it was held as under: "8. Even otherwise, the law on the subject is clear. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Unless it is shown that there is something perverse in its finding, this Court would not interfere. No authority is required for this purpose. But as a large number of aut....