STATE OF ORISSA Vs. CHANDRA KANTA MODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), of the following questions for our determination :

(2.) THESE are the relevant facts appearing on the record : The assessee is a registered dealer bearing registration No. CUI3537 and started its business during the assessment year 1965-66 in aluminium utensils. It was assessed to sales tax for the year 1965-66. The assessment was reopened on the allegation that a part of its turnover had escaped assessment. The assessing officer rejected the books of account for defects indicated in his order and completed the assessment according to his best judgment. As a result thereof, an additional tax demand of Rs. 475. 45 was raised. Before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, the first appeal was dismissed because he was of the view that enhancement of turnover by 10 per cent while completing the assessment according to the best of judgment would not be taken to be arbitrary. The assessee came up in appeal before the Tribunal and the learned Member held :

(3.) THE next question does not indeed arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal found as a fact in its appellate order that the business was commenced during the assessment year in question. The Inspector of the department visited the shop in February, 1966, that is, in the course of the very first year. Therefore, there was no room for doubt that the seized accounts did relate to the assessment year in question. It is true that in a case under section 12 (8) of the Act the initial burden would lie on the revenue to establish that the seized books of account relate to a particular period because, until such correlation is established, the said accounts cannot be utilised as the basis for a finding - even prima facie - for holding that there has been a suppression or escapement. It would always be open to the assessee to dispute the prima facie view of the assessing officer by establishing that the seized books of account do not appertain to the period indicated by the assessing officer. In the present case, however, there is no room to raise such a question of law. We accordingly decline to answer the second question as it does not arise out of the appellate order and in the facts and circumstances of the case.