DY COMMR OF SALES TAX Vs. ARCHANA JEWELLERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue is the petitioner in both the revisions. The same assessee is the respondent in both the cases. The matter relates to the assessment year 1987-88. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. It is a dealer in Jewellery. The sales Tax Appellate Tribunal disposed of T.A.No.799/89, filed by the assessee, and T.A. 201/90, filed by the Revenue, against the same order passed by the first Appellate Authority-Additional Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), dated 17-11-1989, by a common order dated 22-2-1991. For the assessment year 1987-88, the assessee reported a taxable turnover of Rs. 14,46,783.43. The books of accounts and the returns were rejected by the assessing authority and he determined the taxable turnover at Rs.93,74,230/- . In determining the taxable turnover aforesaid, the assessing authority adopted the basis, of three times the running stock value. In first appeal, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales tax, Ernakulam reduced the addition to two times the running stock. Against the relief granted to the assessee, the Revenue filed T.A.No.201 of 1990 before the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal. Not satisfied with the relief granted by the first appellate authority, the assessee filed T.A.No.799 of 1989 before the Appellate Tribunal. Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common order dated 22-2-1991. After adverting to the facts and circumstances in detail, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee in part and held that 100% addition to the reported taxable turnover will meet the ends of justice. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. That is why the Revenue has filed two revisions against the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 22-2-1991.

(2.) We heard counsel for the Revenue - senior Government Pleader Mr.V.C. James. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the rejection of accounts. On an inspection conducted at the business place of the assessee, considerable stock variation was found out and the assessee itself compounded the offence of non maintenance of correct and complete accounts, by paying a compounding fee of Rs.3,700/-. The gross profit was abnormally high. The closing stock was undervalued. The wastage accounted was seen excessive. There was stock variation. The difference in quantity was found in respect of old gold purchases. The explanation offered by the assessee for the various defects were considered and some of the explanations were accepted. Even so, it was evident that there was stock variation of a substantial nature and for the offence of non maintenance of true and correct accounts, the assessee itself came forward with a compounding application. The offence was compounded by paying a fee of Rs. 3,700/-. Even before the Appellate Tribunal the assessee did not plead for acceptance of accounts. On facts, it is common ground that the rejection of accounts was justified.

(3.) The only serious question that arose for consideration before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and still canvassed before us is regarding the reasonableness of the estimate made. On this aspect, we should at once say that reasonableness of the estimate to be made in a best judgment assessment, is largely an exercise to be done on a case to case basis and ordinarily a decision made by the final fact finding authority is not open to review in the revisional court, unless the finding is vitiated in law. If a finding of fact is entered by the Appellate Tribunal, by ignoring relevant facts, or by adverting to irrelevant facts or factors, or by assuming facts or circumstances which have no existence or if the finding is arrived at by posing a wrong question or failing to pose the proper question or in any manner the finding is unfair, perverse or arbitrary or irrational, this Court can interfere with the said finding in exercise of the revisional powers under S.41 of the K.G.S.T. Act.