SAJ BATTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revision petitioner. We have also gone through the orders of Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) WE are concerned with the assessment year 2010 -2011. It is not in dispute that revision petitioner herein is carrying on business in manufacturing of lead acid batteries. Intelligence Wing of the Tax Department inspected the premises of the Company and after enquiry they found eight unaccounted invoices for the year 2008 -2009 and one unaccounted invoice for the year 2010 -2011. However, revision petitioner, without any resistance conceded to the above fact. The Tax Department allowed him to compound the above offence and he was permitted to remit a sum of 25,400/ - so far as assessment year 2010 -2011 as compounding fee.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order of assessment, Commercial Tax Officer, III Circle, Kozhikode, an appeal came to be preferred before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the orders of the assessing authority. Aggrieved by the same, further appeal came to be filed before Appellate Tribunal. Appellate Tribunal also concurred with the opinion of the assessing authority as well as first appellate authority. Aggrieved by the same, present Revision Petition is filed contending that the assessing authority had not used any other material for arriving at the estimated turnover, except taking inspection report of the Intelligence Wing of the Tax Department as the basis. According to revision petitioner, in the absence of any material or clinching evidence, the estimated turnover on mere suspicion and surmises is not sustainable, therefore, none of the authorities were justified in arriving at the said figures based on best judgment method. According to learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in the light of unused invoices being produced before the first Appellate Authority, there was no justification to reject the material to accept the stand of the assessee.