STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RICHMOND DISTILLERIES (P) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions arise out of the common order dated July 31, 2007 passed in S.T.A. Nos. 2723 of 2004 and 2724 of 2004 and Cross Objection Nos. 318 of 2007 and 319 of 2007 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, for considering the following substantial questions of law :

(2.) AFTER perusal of the assessment order passed by the assessing officer for the assessment years 1997 -98 and 1998 -99 and after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence the Tribunal held that the assessing officer wrongly calculated the average sale price per BL and further erred in adding Rs. 4 per BL to the sale price at Rs. 65.83. The Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that the estimation made by the assessing officer for both the assessment years 1997 -98 and 1998 -99 is without any material basis arbitrary and therefore, cannot be upheld and accepted the taxable turnover declared by the respondent at Rs. 28,24,314 for sales of 49,926 BL at Rs. 56.57 per BL. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the assessing officer to issue revised demand notices for the assessment years 1997 -98 and 1998 -99. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, the appellants herein preferred these two appeals for considering the substantial questions of law as referred above.

(3.) AFTER careful perusal of the documentary and oral evidence, we are of the view that the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact by assigning valid reasons at paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 13 of its order. The Tribunal, after physical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and after giving opportunity to both the parties, held that the net value should be adopted instead of gross value. Therefore, we are of the view that it is a well -settled order passed by the Tribunal and hence we do not find any good ground as such made by the appellants. Hence, interference by this court is uncalled for. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed as devoid of merit.