STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RAMSHREE PAYAL BHANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS tax case has been preferred by the State. The challenge is to the order dated December 8, 2000 passed in C. T. A. No. 60 of 1999 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore. The questions of law raised in this case are as under :

(2.) THE assessee was engaged in manufacturing of silver anklets. The assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 4,88,592 in form I for the assessment year 1994 to 1995. As against the assessee, the enforcement wing officials registered a case for transportation of 40.140 kgs of silver anklets which were not supported by any records and collected tax surcharge and compounding fee. When the enforcement wing officials inspected the place of business of the assessee on September 7, 1994, various defects were noted, including an excess stock of 4.244 kgs of silver. Based on the above factors, apart from the taxable turnover reported by the assessee, the actual suppression was determined at Rs. 5,54,800 to which equal addition amount was added towards probable omissions. In all, the total and taxable turnover was determined at a sum of Rs. 15,98,191. On that basis, tax was assessed along with surcharge and additional sales tax was assessed at Rs. 44,770 and penalty of Rs. 52,476 being 150 per cent of short -fall between the tax and surcharge assessed was levied. As against the proceedings of compounding offence relating to the transportation of 40.140 kgs of silver, the assessee preferred a revision before the Joint Commissioner, who, by his order dated September 7, 1997, modified the compounding fee to Rs. 6,000. As against the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner, which was dismissed on January 12,1998. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, dealt with the question of equal addition as issue Nos. (iv) and (v) and held that in the case of the assessee, there was no other instances of carrying goods without any bill and taken a lenient view by modifying the compounding fee and reduced the equal addition to a sum of Rs. 27,586 based on the stock discrepancy noted at the time of inspection, which was valued at Rs. 27,586.

(3.) AS against the above submission, Mr. Lakshmanan, learned Counsel for the respondent/assessee contends by placing reliance upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court reported in Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal v. State of Bihar : [1957] 8 STC 770 : AIR 1957 SC 810 that while applying the concept of best judgment, the assessing authority shall not act dishonestly, vindictively and capriciously. Moreover, in the absence of any consistent suppression pattern adopted by the assessee, the application of equal addition by the assessing authority, while making the best judgment assessment, was totally unwarranted.