MARY ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assessee is the revision petitioner. The assessment year is 1992-93. Annexure A is the assessment order. The Assessing Authority has completed the assessment by estimating the turnover at Rs. 12,09,090 against a conceded turnover of Rs. 2,12,174.50.

(2.) The petitioner was an abkari contractor and he had bid shops A. S. Nos. 25, 29 and 32 of the Puthupally Excise Group. During the year 1992-93 the shops were allotted by fixing monthly quota of arrack for the above shops and arrack was supplied from Travancore Sugars and Chemicals, a Government Distillery. For the year 1992-93, the petitioner purchased 3560 litres of arrack from the Government Distillery and sold at Rs. 2,12,174.50. In the purchase point, the petitioner paid 50 per cent tax and the balance 12.5 per cent for the sales turnover returned. The Assessing Authority has pointed out that no books of accounts were available at the time of inspection on three shops on the very same date, viz., 27th August 1992. For the non availability of books of accounts, the Assessing Authority has estimated the turnover at Rs. 12,09,090 being 5.5 times of the turnover returned. Another defect pointed out by the Assessing Authority was that there was no evidence for the receipt of arrack. The entire purchase was from Travancore Sugars and Chemicals, Tiruvalla. The purchase of arrack was supported by the purchase bills.

(3.) Against the order of the Assessing Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority though convinced about the fact that no quantum of suppression was fixed by the Intelligence Officer or by the Assessing Authority, did not interfere with the basis adopted by the Assessing Authority for estimating the turnover. Annexure B is the order. Against that, the petitioner preferred a Second Appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that against the order of the Assessing Authority, the State has filed an appeal and that appeal has been dismissed earlier. According to the Tribunal, against the order of the Assessing Authority, an appeal was filed by the State as T. A. No. 143 of 1995 and the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal took the view that the present appeal cannot be entertained. The order of the Tribunal states as follows: "On going through the connected records, it is seen that the State has filed an appeal before this Tribunal against the modifications ordered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the year 1992-93, i.e., the order under impugned in this appeal. The Tribunal, as per its Order No. T. A. 143/95, dated 6th June 1997, confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the State Appeal after considering all aspects of the case.