TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The petitioner also seeks to assail the reassessment order dated 25.10.2017 bearing No.283246584 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-1.7), including the consequential levy of tax, penalty and interest. 2. The petitioner/Bank herein is the Dealer/appellant before the authority below and the respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that:- The petitioner is a Public Limited Company having its registered office at No.3, Prestige Obelisk, Municipal No.3, Kasturba Road, Bengaluru-560001 and is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'the KVAT Act') bearing TIN No.29020670562. The petitioner is a banking company and financial institution and is also engaged in the sale of gold and silver bullion. It is stated that the petitioner is one of the banks authorized by the Reserve Bank of India to import gold and silver bullion from international suppliers on consignment basis, discharge the applicable customs duty and thereafter effect sales to local jewellery manufacturers and bullion traders in India. The petitioner claims to have discharged VAT on su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m VAT-240 for the year 2012-13 and that a reconciliation of the quantity of bullion purchased and sold during the relevant period had also been furnished. 7. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-1.7), pursuant to Assignment No.188549502 dated 15.09.2016 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, initiated reassessment proceedings for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. A proposition notice is stated to have been issued on 15.09.2017. The petitioner contends that the said proposition notice was not served upon it. By reassessment order dated 25.10.2017 bearing No.283246584, passed under Sections 39, 36(2) and 72(2) of the KVAT Act, the Assessing Authority confirmed the proposition and enhanced the turnover for October 2012, November 2012 and December 2012 by treating the alleged unreported purchases as corresponding undeclared sales. Tax at 1% was levied on the enhanced turnover together with penalty and interest. The turnover so determined was Rs.6,33,47,526/-, with tax of Rs.6,33,476/-, penalty of Rs.63,348/- and interest of Rs.5,64,451/-, aggregating to Rs.12,61,275/-. 8. Aggrieved by the reassessment order dated 25.10.2017, the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by recording that the turnover involved in the present appeal was Rs.6,33,47,526/-. However, the Tribunal declined to interfere with its findings on the merits and reiterated that the petitioner's contention regarding non-filing of revised returns within the prescribed period could not be accepted. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the authorities and the Tribunal proceeded on an erroneous assumption that omission to disclose purchases in the monthly VAT-100 returns necessarily established suppression of sales turnover. It is submitted that the correct purchase figures had already been disclosed in Form VAT240 filed on 31.12.2013, much before the inspection dated 18.02.2015, and that the books of account, audited financial statements and reconciliation statement established that there was no suppression of sales. 13. It is further contended that Form VAT-240, filed pursuant to Section 31(4) of the KVAT Act read with Rule 34 of the KVAT Rules, was a statutory audited document containing the annual particulars of purchases and sales and ought to have been considered by the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authorities. According to the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n disclosed additional tax liability. 17. The petitioner has also relied upon various decisions concerning best judgment assessment, estimation of escaped turnover, equal addition, suppression, mens rea, penalty and interpretation of judicial precedents. The substance of the reliance is that an assessment based on best judgment cannot be arbitrary or founded upon mere conjecture; that an estimate must have a reasonable nexus with the material available on record; that mere incorrectness or inadvertence in a return does not necessarily establish wilful suppression; and that penalty cannot follow automatically in the absence of deliberate or contumacious conduct. 18. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the books of account, Form VAT-240, reconciliation statement and other documents relied upon by it and mechanically affirmed the orders of the authorities below. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the distinction between an omission in reporting purchase turnover and actual suppression of sales turnover and, consequently, erred in sustaining the reassessment, equal addition, penalty and interest. 19. In support his contenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horities below and was not accepted. Though the petitioner relied upon the subsequent disclosure in Form VAT-240, it had not filed revised returns in respect of the omission within the prescribed period. 22. Learned HCGP would further contend that the First Appellate Authority examined the material and the explanation furnished by the petitioner and thereafter affirmed the reassessment order. The Tribunal also considered the contentions raised by the petitioner, including the disclosure in Form VAT-240, the alleged inadvertent nature of the omission and the challenge to the estimation of turnover, and recorded reasons for upholding the orders of the authorities below. 23. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned HCGP appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. 24. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondents and upon perusal of the reassessment order dated 25.10.2017, the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.12.2018, the judgment of the Tribunal dated 29.06.2020 and the rectification order dated 31.03.2021, this Court finds that an inspection was conducted at the business premises of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the consequential levy of tax, penalty and interest. The Tribunal has considered the challenge to the estimation and has upheld the method adopted by the authorities below on the facts of the case. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the estimation was founded on no material whatsoever or that the findings recorded by the authorities below are perverse. The mere fact that another view may be possible on appreciation of the material would not furnish a ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction. 29. The petitioner has also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the documents and grounds urged before it. The said contention cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has considered the petitioner's explanation regarding the alleged inadvertent omission, the disclosure in Form VAT-240 and the challenge to the estimation of turnover. It has also considered the decisions relied upon by the petitioner and has found them inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal is therefore not one rendered without consideration of the material or contentions placed before it. 30. It is also necessary to notice that the Tribunal, by its....