DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. STANLEY PAULOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE proceedings present a futile but rigorous attempt to run through the gamut of notifications, reported authorities and pendency of an unconnected matter in the Supreme Court, taking the least care to ascertain the jurisdictional requirement of the necessary factual matrix.

(2.) THE exercise has brought us to a situation to find that the basis factual requirement is conspicuous by its total absence. The assessing authority has considered the aspect in its order dated March 20, 1985. The assessee a dealer in chicken, greenpease, stationery, etc. In form 8 annual return for the assessment year 1980 -81 was filed disclosing total and taxable turnover of Rs. 21,39,604.40 and Rs. 83,343.01 respectively. For some reasons recorded in the order the books of accounts produced were not accepted. The question in this proceedings relates to the sales of meat supposed to have been kept in cold storage and thereby attracting levy at 6 per cent with effect from September 16, 1980 in view of the addition of entry No. 114 that came to be added in 1990 with retrospectivity from the above date.

(3.) IT is thus obvious that any attempt to take advantage of entry No. 114 coming on the statute having force with effect from September 16, 1980, that again on the basis of taking advantage of inspection dated February 7, 1985 to find two deep freezers in use at the head office at Spencer for keeping frozen items. Resort is taken by the authority for a wild inference that during the assessment year which is as far back as 1980 -81 that there was meat in cold storage and further astoundingly that two deep freezers were on the premises at that time on the basis of inference from the fact detected on February 7, 1985. The reasoning would show that to term such reasoning based on wild inference would only be a description based on judicial restrain in regard thereto.