VADAYATTU JEWELLERY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition-firm is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. THE respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1988-89. THE assessee-firm is a jeweller. For the year 1988-89, it returned a total taxable turnover of Rs. 8,22,495. 10. Its books of account were rejected for the various reasons stated in the assessment order dated January 31, 1991. THE turnover was determined by estimating the sales turnover at four times the average running stock and by adding 10 per cent to the sales turnover of silver to cover up suppression. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the turnover of gold by adopting three times the average running stock as the basis for the estimate. In other respects, the assessment was confirmed. In second appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T. A. No. 245 of 1992, by its order dated October 26, 1992, modified the estimate regarding sales turnover of gold ornaments at 2. 5 times the average running stock. THE addition in respect of silver was reduced to 5 per cent. Regarding the car, the Appellate Tribunal held that the assessing authority should be directed to re-examine the matter, as to whether the car was actually owned by the firm or by the partner and only if the car was owned by the firm, tax could be levied. In other words, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed in part. Dissatisfied with the relief granted by the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has come up in revision.

(2.) WE heard counsel for the assessee, Mr. S. A. Nagendran, Senior Advocate.

(3.) THE only other point is regarding the quantum of estimate. Counsel stressed on a recent decision of this Bench in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Archana Jewellery [1993] 89 STC 27; KLJ (Tax Cases) 127 and submitted that the Appellate Tribunal did not bear in mind the proper approach to be made in fixing the quantum to be estimated in the best judgment assessment as laid down in the said decision. We find that the Appellate Tribunal has rendered its decision as early as October 26, 1992 and the decision of this Court relied on is dated January 18, 1993. As a final fact-finding authority, it was for the Appellate Tribunal to fix the quantum of estimate in a best judgment assessment. It cannot be denied that in the case of a jeweller fixation of sales turnover of gold ornaments on the basis of the average running stock is an accepted basis or method. THE assessing authority estimated the sales turnover of gold ornaments at four times the average running stock, which was reduced to three times by the first appellate authority and still reduced to 2. 5 times by the Appellate Tribunal. It was open to the Appellate Tribunal to fix the quantum of estimate on the basis of the average running stock, as it was open to the Appellate Tribunal to adopt any other permissible basis. THE multiple of running stock is only one of the basis. It is one of the relevant or permissible basis that has been adopted by the Appellate Tribunal. We see no error in this. THE Bench decision in Archana Jewellery's case [1993] 89 STC 27 (Ker); 1993 KLJ (Tax Cases) 127 has no bearing on the question involved herein. In that case, for reasons stated, the Appellate Tribunal, as a final fact-finding authority, held that the method of estimating the turnover by reference to running stock will be unreasonable and unfair. This Court upheld the said decision and took the view that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal on that score is largely a finding of fact and in fixing the quantum in a best judgment assessment, the multiple of running stock is only one of the basis that can be adopted. If the Appellate Tribunal has adopted any other permissible basis for estimating the turnover by referring to the particular facts and circumstances of a case, it cannot be stated that the Appellate Tribunal erred in law. THE case on hand is a converse case wherein the Appellate Tribunal has applied the multiple of running stock as a proper basis for estimating the sales turnover. We see no error in this. Similarly, the addition in respect of silver to 5 per cent of the turnover does not call for any interference. Regarding the sale of car, the Appellate Tribunal ordered only a remit. No other point was urged before us. We are of the view that the order of the Appellate Tribunal does not disclose any error of law nor has the tribunal failed to decide any question of law. THE revision is without merit. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .