MADRAS METAL WORKS Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 15th May, 1964, there was a surprise inspection by the commercial tax authorities of the business premises of the assessee in this case, who was a manufacturer of certain aluminium and brass utensils. As a result of the said surprise inspection, certain anamath account books and slips were recovered from the premises. Out of the account books and slips so recovered, one book contained the details of certain transactions during the period 15th February, 1964, to 31st March, 1964, and it was found to be of the value of Rs. 27, 794. This sum was treated by the assessing officer as the sale value of the utensils during the relevant period, and, taking it as the basis, the suppressed turnover for the entire year on this account was calculated at rs. 2, 22, 352. There were other account books and slips which showed transactions on certain dates which had been suppressed from the regular accounts. The assessee could not explain the entries in those account books and slips. Therefore, the assessing authority took the entries in the other account books and slips as representing the suppression during the assessment year 1963-64 and enhanced the turnover returned by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 2, 68, 907. 76. Before the appellate authority as well as the Sales Tax appellate Tribunal, the assessee mainly concentrated on the turnover of Rs. 2, 22, 352 being the estimated turnover on the basis of the anamath account book, (A-1), which according to the revenue showed the value of the utensils manufactured and sold for the period from 15th February, 1964, to 31st March, 1964.

(2.) THE contention of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the addition of the said turnover of Rs. 2, 22, 352 could not be justified, on the following grounds : (i) there was no justification to multiply the turnover determined from the account book (A-1), which is for the specific period 15th February, 1964, to 31st March, 1964, by eight times so as to find out the turnover for the entire year, and, if at all, the actual figures found in the book (A-1)alone should be added; (ii) the assessing officer should have given due allowance for the holidays during which the manufacturing operations and sales of utensils could not have taken place and the estimate of the turnover for the entire year without reference to the holidays could not be justified; and (iii)the explanation offered by the assessee in relation to the account book covering the period 15th February, 1964, to 31st March, 1964, that it represented the actual entrustment of the metal to the manufacturers for making utensils and that it did not represent the sales of the manufactured utensils, should have been accepted. THE Tribunal considered all these contentions and rejected them and ultimately upheld the estimate made by the assessing officer. THE same contentions were reiterated before us by the learned counsel for the assessee. We are, however, inclined to accept the view taken by the Tribunal, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case. Here, the anamath account book, (A-1), showed certain transactions during the period 15th february, 1964, to 31st March, 1964. THE assessee's explanation that it related to the entrustment of the metal to the manufacturers for making utensils and that it did not represent the turnover of sales did not find acceptance before the authorities below, including the Tribunal.