LAWS(KER)-2020-11-179

ALIF STEEL AGENCIES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On November 25, 2020
Alif Steel Agencies Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner/assessee is a registered dealer dealing in iron and steel. The final assessment for the year 2007-08 was completed as per Annexure A order, making an estimated addition of Rs.7,28,77,258/- to the declared turnover of Rs.38,56,41,465/-. The addition was made alleging suppression of purchase, which was arrived at on the basis of the delivery notes issued by M/s.Beepath Castings Pvt.Ltd., Kanjikode(hereinafter referred to as the supplier). According to the Assessing Authority, the quantity shown in the delivery notes issued by the supplier to the transporter and the quantity shown in the sale invoices issued by the supplier to the petitioner, vary. It is the case of the petitioner that they cannot be held responsible for the variation. According to the petitioner, they have recorded their entire purchases, supported by corresponding purchase bills, and the declared turnover was arrived at on that basis. On the "estimated additional turnover", the Assessing Officer "estimated" a gross profit of 5%. An appeal filed against the assessment was disposed of by the Appellate Authority, reducing the estimate of gross profit from 5% to 3%. The Appellate Authority also found that the petitioner is eligible for special rebate under Section 62 of the KVAT Act. The petitioner challenged Annexure B order before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on 16.02.2012 on the reason of delay. The order of the Tribunal was set aside by this Court by its judgment dated 01.06.2015 in W.P(C)No.11372 of 2012 and the Tribunal was directed to consider the appeal. By order dated 17.11.2015, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal sustaining the purchase suppression found in the assessment order, relying on the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner contends that it is for the Department to prove purchase suppression, the burden of which had been wrongly shifted to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged Annexure D order of the Appellate Tribunal in this revision petition.

(2.) The question of law raised in the revision petition is re- framed by us as follows:

(3.) Heard Sri T.M.Sreedharan, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri V.P.Narayanan on behalf of the revision petitioner and Sri Mohammed Rafiq, Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the Revenue.