SIVA TRADERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision-petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. THE assessee is doing business in arrack and toddy. We are concerned with the assessment year 1985-86. THEre was surprise inspection of the business premises conducted by the Intelligence Officer on November 6, 1985. Huge quantity of unaccounted purchases of arrack and some other irregularities were found out. Seven slips containing details were recovered from the business premises. THE assessee himself filed an application for compounding the offence in the sum of Rs. 30,000. It was accepted. THE assessing authority rejected the accounts and the book results and an estimate was made. THE first appellate authority dismissed the appeal. THE Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated December 22, 1987, substantially decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. THE Revenue filed a revision in this Court (T. R. C. No. 119 of 1989 ). THE order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was set aside by judgment dated July 19, 1989 (Reported as Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Siva Traders in [1990] 79 STC 343 (Ker ).) and a remit was ordered to the Tribunal. It is in pursuance to the said order of remit, the Appellate Tribunal decided the matter again and allowed the appeal to the limited extent stated in paragraph 8 of the appellate order dated March 27, 1990. THE assessing authority was directed to fix the suppression for the year at 1,03,251 litres instead of 1,06,788 litres. THE assessment was modified only to this extent. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated March 27, 1990, the assessee has come up in revision.

(2.) WE heard counsel for the revision-petitioner Mr. E. R. Venkiteswaran. As could be seen from paragraph 5 of the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee's counsel did not canvass for the acceptance of the books of accounts. The results of the inspection, recovery of the slips and other records by the Intelligence Officer were not seriously disputed. The admission made by the assessee in the compounding application at the time of inspection was not disputed. The counsel for the assessee did not produce the original slips detected at the time of inspection, on the basis of which the assessing authority estimated the turnover for the year. So, the only question argued before the Appellate Tribunal, as is evident from the appellate order, was that the estimate made by the assessing authority is highly excessive and arbitrary.

(3.) WE are of the view that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal cannot be attacked as erroneous in law. To confine the addition to the quantum unearthed, as urged by counsel, will be to act mechanically - a negation of the best judgment assessment.