VINEET ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This tax revision case under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ("the Act", for short), is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dated 29/09/1987, partly dismissing Tribunal Appeal No. 986 of 1987 preferred by the petitioner herein and partly confirming the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad-I Division, dated 25/07/1987, in Appeal No. 729/86-87 which in turn confirmed the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, General Bazar Circle, Secunderabad, in GI. No. 28054/82-83 dated 5/12/1986. The assessee is a proprietary concern of one Smt. Kusum Latha. She questions the best judgment assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer as confirmed by the Tribunal in respect of the purchases of photographic goods made by her from Bombay of the value of Rs. 8,38,631.18.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows : The assessment relates to the assessment year 1982-83 under the Act. She was a registered dealer under the Act at the relevant time and the goods in respect of which she was shown as a dealer was cement. For the business she did in cement, for the assessment year 1982-83, she filed a return showing a turnover of Rs. 36,000 and claimed exemption. Her claim was accepted and assessment order was made on 8/09/1984, which was received by her on 8/09/1984 itself. On 9/07/1985, a search of her business and residential premises was conducted during which it was found that during the period 4/01/198 2/03/1983, she made purchases of photographic goods from one M/s. Keshoram Surendranath of Bombay to the tune of Rs. 8,38,631.18 and that she issued form C declarations in respect of the said purchase. The concerned Commercial Tax Officer, in exercise of his powers under sub-section (4) of section 14 of the Act, issued notice dated 13/05/1986, to her to show cause why a turnover of Rs. 10,90,220 should not be brought to tax as suppressed turnover of sales that figure was arrived at by adding to the purchase price 30 per cent estimated profit on that price of Rs. 8,38,631.18. In spite of several opportunities given to the petitioner herein, she did not give a reply to the show cause notice by herself or through her advocate who filed his appearance on 3/07/1986. The Commercial Tax Officer finally made his order dated 5/12/1986, holding that the petitioner herein wilfully suppressed the sales of photographic goods relating to suppressed purchases of the said goods worth Rs. 8,38,631.18 and that turnover of Rs. 10,90,220, escaped assessment for the year 1982-83, and brought that to tax and assessed the tax payable thereon at Rs. 1,49,905. The said order was served on the petitioner on 27/01/1987. According to the petitioner, she sent her objections on 15/01/1987 to the Commercial Tax officer before she received the said order.

(3.) The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes against the said order. The petitioner also filed Writ Petition No. 3341 of 1987 before this Court seeking directions to the sales tax authorities not to take coercive steps for the recovery of the amount demanded on the basis of the said order of the Commercial Tax Officer and that writ petition was disposed of on 17/03/1987, with a direction to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner for expeditious disposal of the appeal of the petitioner hereinbefore him and directing the authorities concerned not to take coercive steps during the pendency of the said appeal. In spite of several opportunities given by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner thereafter, the petitioner herein sought adjournments from time to time and the appeal was posted for hearing to 25/07/1987. The petitioner herein by letter dated 24/07/1987, sought adjournment once again on the ground that her daughter was going to be operated, even though she was represented by an advocate. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner considered the contentions of the petitioner herein as raised in the grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal on merits holding as follows :