BADRIPRASAD AGARWALLA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee deals in food-stuffs. On September 5, 1979, at about 10 a. m. some inspecting officers of the Sales Tax Department found on physical verification excess stock of 26 bags of wheat and 27 bags of gram. The assessee stated that he had received those goods on September 4, 1979, having been purchased from (a) M/s. Shib Shankar Trading Co. , Raipur, and (b) M/s. Ajay Traders, Raipur. The further case of the assessee was that the stock had been transported through Prakash Garage, Raipur. The officer of the department doubted the genuineness of the transaction inasmuch as in the vouchers produced, there was no mention of sales tax license number or foodgrain licence number. No challan or way-bills were also produced. An investigation was, therefore, made and it was found that there were no dealers of the aforesaid names at Gudiyari, Raipur. However, they found one Ajay Traders at Ramasagarpara, who stated that he carried no transaction whatsoever with the assessee. Contact was also made with Prakash Garage whose in-charge denied having transported any goods to Brajarajnagar where the assessee has its business either on September 4, 1979 or September 5, 1979. From these facts, the assessing officer concluded that the two purchase vouchers were fake and has been prepared by the dealer itself to adjust the excess stock of wheat and gram. He enhanced the gross turnover by 50 per cent inasmuch as the value of the aforesaid goods was about Rs. 10,500 as against the average daily transaction of Rs. 12,500.

(2.) ON appeal being preferred, the assessee, to lend credence to its case, produced a way-bill stating that the consignment had passed through some check-posts between Raipur and Brajarajnagar. He, therefore, asserted that the genuineness of the transaction could not be questioned. The appellate authority did not give credence to the way-bill on the ground that the stamps on the reverse of the way-bill which were stated to be of some check-posts were absolutely illegible and could not be deciphered. The appellate authority doubted the genuineness of the way-bill also on the ground that the same had not been produced at the earlier stage because of which the way-bill was regarded to be a subsequent manipulation. Further, the dealer could not establish any link between the way-bill and Prakash Garage. The finding of the assessing officer was, therefore, confirmed. The enhancement of the gross turnover by 50 per cent was also held to be not excessive.

(3.) ON the aforesaid facts, on the prayer of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question for answer by this Court :