S. JAMEELA BEEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS sales tax revision pertains to the assessment year 1999 -2000. The assessee in this sales tax revision filed under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ("the Act" for short), calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the well considered order passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 679 of 2004 dated January 16, 2006. The assessee has framed the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are as under :

(2.) THE assessee is a dealer registered under the provisions of the KGST Act. The assessee primarily effects import of raw cashew -nuts and after processing the aforesaid commodity effects both intra and inter -State sales. Shop inspections had been conducted by the Intelligence Officers of the Department not once, but twice in the assessee's business premises. The first one was on April 22, 1999 and the second one was on March 18, 2000. On both these occasions, the Intelligence Officer had noticed certain discrepancies in the books of account maintained by the dealer in the regular course of business. The assessee had filed her annual returns before the assessing authority conceding a particular total and taxable turnover. In view of the shop inspections that was conducted by the Intelligence Officer of the Department and further, since the assessee has compounded the offence departmentally in lieu of prosecution proceedings, the assessing authority after rejecting the books of account and the returns filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1999 -2000, had issued a pre -assessment notice. In the said notice he had pointed out, apart from others, that, the petitioner had accounted for the purchase turnover of the imported raw cashew -nuts in a sum of Rs. 28,96,24,712.17 and in so far as the purchase turnover of Rs. 44,08,600 of imported raw cashew -nuts, the assessee had not produced any documents in support of such purchase. Apart from this omission, the assessing authority had also pointed out various other omissions found by the Intelligence Officer of the Department at the time of the shop inspections and, therefore, while rejecting the returns filed by the assessee had issued a pre -assessment notice, inter alia, directing the petitioner to offer her explanation, if any, to the proposal made in the pre -assessment notice.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the orders so passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee is before us in this sales tax revision. Time and again we have observed, that, section 41 of the Act can be pressed into service by the parties to the lis, if for any reason, the Tribunal has failed to decide a question of law or has erroneously decided a question of law. Here we add that if the finding of the Tribunal on facts is a perverse finding, then also a question of law would arise for consideration and decision by this court. In the instant case, a best judgment assessment order is passed by the assessing authority purely based on the shop inspection report conducted by the Intelligence Officer of the Department, not once, but twice. The assessing authority by making use of the mahazars drawn by the Intelligence Officer of the Department at the time of the shop inspections had issued a pre -assessment notice to the assessee, inter alia, proposing to make certain additions towards the probable suppressions and omissions said to have been made by the assessee during the course of her business for the assessment year 1999 -2000. One of the omissions that was pointed out by the assessing authority in the pre -assessment notice is with regard to the shortage of the imported raw cashew -nuts. Though the assessee had filed her explanation, since the same was unsatisfactory, the assessing authority has rejected the explanation and thereafter has proceeded to pass the best judgment assessment.