STATE Vs. KANHIYALAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are four references made under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by the Additional Member, Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, of the following questions for decision of the court : <AT>" (1) Whether the expression 'period' in section 12 (8) can be construed in a restricted manner meaning a quarter or whether it means the relevant year for which the accounts are maintained by the assessee. (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the suppression detected during the quarter ending March, 1962, it is permissible to hold that there was an escapement of the turnover during that quarter only and not during other quarters covered by the relevant accounting year. "</AT>

(2.) A resume of the facts relevant for determination of the questions referred to us as appearing from the statement of facts may now be given. The assessee is a registered dealer under the orissa Sales Tax Act. It had assessed to sales tax for the quarters ending December, 1961, to December, 1962. The assessing officer reopened the assessment under section 12 (8) of the Act for these quarters. The suppression which was ultimately found to have been established was with regard to a transaction of Rs. 323-12-0 appearing in a third party's account on 29th January, 1962, on the basis of which the suppression was found out and the allegation was sustained. The dealer maintained account from Dewali to Dewali. The suppression thus related to the accounting period of 1961-62 and related to five quarters, namely, ending December, 1961, to ending December, 1962. The assessing officer completed the assessments under section 12 (8) of the Act according to the best of judgment for all these five quarters on the basis of the aforesaid lone suppression. In appeal the assessments were sustained. In second appeal before the Tribunal, however, assessment for the quarter ending 31st March, 1962, was maintained on the finding that the suppression related to that quarter and assessments under section 12 (8) of the Act for the remaining four quarters were set aside. The State thereafter applied for these references to be made to this court in respect of the four quarters where the Tribunal interfered.

(3.) THE next question has been long answered by this court in Silla Krishna Murty v. Commissioner of Sales Tax ([1961] 12 S. T. C. 584) and Jami Biswanath Prusthy v. Commissioner of Sales Tax ([1961] 12 S. T. C. 606 ). It has been held by this court :