POLAKI SRIRANGAM AND SONS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 17th January, 1972, this court on an application made under section 24 (2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the assessee, called upon the Tribunal to make a statement of the case referring the following four questions for determination :

(2.) THE assessee is a firm carrying on business in kerosene oil, cement, petrol, tyres, batteries and automobile spares at Berhampur in the district of Ganjam and has been assigned registration number GA I 263. For the assessment year 1963-64, the Sales Tax Officer did not accept the accounts of the assessee and after rejecting the same enhanced the turnover by addition of Rs. 40,000. He found : (i) the assessee had not maintained the goods ledger in regular course of business and the gross profit disclosed was low keeping in view the dealer's nature and extent of business; (ii) the cash bills issued by the assessee did not indicate the names and addresses of the purchasers on account of which lapse, the sales were not verifiable; (iii) the low margin of the gross profits was correlated to under-statement of cash sales and the gross profit as per the trading account for the year 1963-64 was not accepted by the income-tax department; and (iv) on a surprise visit to the business premises on 22nd May, 1963, an inspecting officer of the department found 16 slips evidencing sale transactions for which there were no corresponding cash or credit bills. Against the assessment, the assessee preferred first appeal. The appellate authority agreed with the assessing that the books were liable to rejection and estimates were justified. But he reduced the estimate. The second appeal to the Tribunal by the assessee was fixed for hearing on 12th May, 1970. It is stated that on that day five affidavits were filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by order dated 16th May, 1970, and affirmed the assessment as modified by the first appellate authority. An application made under section 24 (1) of the Act was rejected on the footing that no question of law arose out of the appellate order.

(3.) AS already stated, on the date of hearing of the second appeal before the Tribunal 5 affidavits were filed by the assessee. The order-sheet of that date in the second appeal read as follows :