JACOB MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala general Sales Tax Act, 1963. THE respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1983-84. THE assessee is running an oil mill. He states that he has also a mill for grinding wheat and hulling paddy. For the year 1983-84, the assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 11,35,641. 96. THE accounts and the return submitted by the assessee were rejected. A best judgment assessment was made. THE taxable turnover was fixed at Rs. 19,77,790. A total tax of Rs. 50,044. 41 and a surcharge of Rs. 4,003. 55 were demanded. THE accounts were rejected for eight reasons. THE business premises of the assessee was inspected on April 21, 1983. THE SIR prepared by the Intelligence Wing when compared with the accounts showed discrepancy. THE accounts did not show any purchase of gum for crushing copra. As per Invoice no. 1773 dated August 25,1983, the assessee has despatched to Cochin 11. 65 quintals C. N. Oil while the opening stock was only 9. 70 quintals. THEre was an excess of 1. 95 quintals of C. N. oil. THE meter card showing consumption of electricity was not produced. THE assessee also did not maintain a register showing the particulars of persons who availed of the- facility of job work or the bills issued for collecting job work charges. THE correctness thereof could not be verified. THE Sales Tax Officer also found that the quantity of paddy hulled and wheat processed is very huge and there is no probability of such huge quantity of paddy and wheat being processed in that locality. After allowing a reasonable amount for electrical energy, for paddy hulling and wheat grinding and light, balance of electrical energy was treated as the quantity required for crushing copra. 81/2 units per quintal was allowed. THE estimate was made on that basis. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the rejection of accounts and the rejection of return and held that a best judgment assessment was called for in this case. However, in making the estimate, he allowed 10 units of electrical energy for crushing one quintal of copra. Appropriate relief was given on that basis and modification in the estimate was made.

(2.) THE assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. THE appeal filed by the Revenue is t. A. No. 479 of 1988 and the appeal filed by the assessee is T. A. No. 25 of 1989. THE above appeals were considered together and a common order was passed by the appellate Tribunal, dated May 14,1990. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the modification effected by the first appellate authority was assailed. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the quantum sustained by the the appellate authority was questioned. THE appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. So also, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. THE assessee has filed this revision against the common order so passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated May 14, 1990, in T. A. No. 479 of 1988 (the appeal filed by the revenue ). No revision is filed against the dismissal of the assessee's appeal (T. A. No. 25 of 1989 ).

(3.) ON the merits, the main plea of the assessee was that the accounts were rejected on flimsy grounds. It was further argued that the appellate Tribunal erred in not entering a finding with regard to the consumption of energy for job works (de-husking paddy and grinding wheat ). Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Appellate Tribunal, in the common order, having sustained the rejection of accounts, in para. 6, clearly held that the modification effected by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) -first appellate authority-was justified. The Appellate Tribunal also upheld the rejection of accounts and also the estimate sustained by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)in the assessee's appeal (para. 7 ). ON the merits, the order of the Appellate tribunal does not disclose any error of law. The Tribunal also did not fail to decide any question of law.