VIJAYALAKSHMI TRADING CO. Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 2 Tax Revision cases are filed by the same assessee against the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in Tribunal Appeal Nos. 296 of 1976 and 297 of 1976, which relate to the assessment year 1968 -69. Against the order in Tribunal Appeal No. 296 of 1976, Tax Revision case No. 153 of 1986 is preferred which pertains to the assessment and against the order in Tribunal Appeal No. 297 or 1976, Tax Revision case No. 191 of 1976 is preferred which pertains to penalty. The assessee is a proprietary concern dealing in paddy and rice. Though assessment for the said year was completed by the Commercial Tax Officer, yet, it was reopened under Section 14(4) as a consequence of inspection of the premises of one Suryanarayana on 5 -2 -1976. In the said inspection, certain bill books were recovered which show that they relate to N. Nagireddy who is the proprietor of the assessed company. The subject matter of these bills was treated as suppressed turnover and the assessee was levied tax thereon. The Assessing authority also initiated penalty proceedings and levied twice the tax due on the suppressed amount. On appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order of the Assessing authority. The assessee then filed second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. By a common order dated 19 -9 -1985, the Tribunal reduced the suppressed turnover to almost one half and also reduced the penalty equal to the tax on the suppressed turnover, thus, determined by it.

(2.) SRI D. Ranganadha Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in these tax revision cases, took the stand that the Tribunal had held that it was difficult to accept the conclusion of the Assessing authority that the proprietor of the assessed firm converted his paddy into rice in the mill of the said Suryanarayana and disposed of the resultant rice and bran without paying tax; therefore, the Tribunal should have held that there was no suppressed turnover by the assessee. We are afraid we cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel. A perusal of the said conclusion shows that what was held was that it was difficult to accept the premises of the Assessing authority that Nagireddy converted his paddy into rice and disposed of the resultant rice in the mill and bran without paying tax on the ground that as a fact it was found that Suryanarayana did not hold any flour mill though he was having a mill, yet, that was found to be untrue. On the basis of the evidence, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that it could be the case of purchase of paddy by Suryanarayana from Nagireddy and therefore, the assessee was liable to pay the tax. It was on that ground the suppressed turnover was reduced. We do not find any illegality in the approach or ultimate order passed or the decision given by the Tribunal.