R GOPI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the assessee in this tax revision case which relates to the assessment year 1987-88. Annexure 1 is the copy of the assessment order for the aforesaid year fixing the taxable turnover of Rs. 1,34,329. 65. In respect of the above assessment year, the petitioner filed a return declaring the total turnover of Rs. 45,47,185. 97 and claimed total exemption on the ground that the sales represent second sales. Pursuant to the assessment notice proposing rejection of the accounts under section 17 (3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 objections were filed on July 26, 1988. THE assessing authority over-ruling the objections finalised the assessment. An estimated addition of 5 per cent of the total turnover was added towards suppression in the accounts. As against the assessment, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner restricted the addition to 2 1/2 per cent. THE matter was taken up before the Tribunal. THE Tribunal by the order dated December 8, 1989 dismissed the appeal. THE present tax revision case is filed against the said order of the Tribunal.

(2.) COUNSEL for the assessee contended that the additions made in the turnover is without any basis. His further case is that he being a second seller the turnover involved in this case is liable to be exempted from payment of tax. He also pleaded that in view of the minor variation in the stock the turnover returned by the assessee should be accepted.

(3.) IT came to our notice that during the assessment year there was an inspection of the petitioner's business premises on September 28, 1987 by the Intelligence Squad, Pathanamthitta. After preparation of the shop inspection report certain records relating to the business has been recovered. The verification of the seized records revealed unaccounted sales on different date. When the assessing authority proposed prosecution proceedings, the assessee has filed a petition to compound the offence departmentally. Accordingly, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 10,000 as compounding fee in lieu of prosecution. That would sufficiently indicate that the stock variations reported by the assessing authority were correct and there was no manner of doubt about the existence of the irregularities pointed out by the assessing authority.