K RAMAKRISHNA RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1976, the two questions urged by the petitioner are these :

(2.) The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has given reasons for upholding the best judgment assessment. The assessee did not maintain the manufacturing account showing the wages paid for labour. The reasons given by the Tribunal, in our opinion, is a good one. The Tribunal has also pointed out that while making the estimate of the turnover, the gross profit of 25 per cent was added to the cost of materials. The estimate of turnover made by the assessing authority was reasonable and does not call for interference.

(3.) Shri C. N. Kamath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that brass cradle could not be regarded as furniture. In our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in holding that brass cradle was an article of furniture. Sri Kamath drew our attention to the amendment of item No. 108 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act so as to restrict the scope of that entry to wooden furniture only. But that amendment was made subsequent to the assessment year in question and hence has no application to the present case.