LAWS(KER)-2012-8-479

REJI JOSE Vs. STATE OF KERLA

Decided On August 13, 2012
REJI JOSE Appellant
V/S
State Of Kerla Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee is in revision, challenging the orders of the Tribunal, affirming the order of the Assessing Officer, as modified by the first appellate authority. The revisions are with respect to the years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The assessee is a dealer in ice creams, registered under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", and who has opted for paying tax under Section 6(5) of the Act. Section 6(5) provides payment of presumptive tax at the rate of 0.5% by such dealers as specified therein, whose total turnover for an year is below Rs.50 lakhs; the limit being so for the respective assessment years.

(2.) In the year 2006-07, the assessee conceded a turnover of Rs. 21,95,176.60. The returns filed by the assessee disclosing the above turnover was rejected, inter alia, on the basis of the proceedings initiated by the Intelligence Wing of the Department for suppression of purchase, which offence was compounded by the assessee. The actual suppression of purchase detected was multiplied with the gross profit to arrive at the sales turnover suppressed. Addition at 3 times for probable omission and suppression was also made. The turnover having crossed the limit of Rs.50 lakhs, the entire turnover was assessed. For the year 2007-08, the turnover conceded was Rs.23,97,418.85. Offences similar to that of the previous year was detected and actual suppression as also additions for probable omissions and suppressions were made. Turnover for the said year also exceeded the limit under Section 6(5).

(3.) The first appellate authority refused to interfere with the rejection of books of accounts and returns, but modified the additions to 2 times and 3 times for the respective years. The assessee was before the Tribunal, contending that no addition could have been made, since the entire suppression for the year was reckoned. It was the contention of the assessee that if such additions over and above the actual suppressed turnover; were not made, the assessee's turnover would have still been within the limit prescribed under Section 6(5) and then there would have been no scope for treating the assessee as being liable to pay tax under Section 6(1). The assessee also made claim for input tax credit. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts as also the best judgment assessment made, as modified by the first appellate authority. The input tax credit was also declined.