ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. KAPUR TRUNK FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order dated September 30, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal dismissing the department's appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by which the order of the original assessing authority was set aside. The limited question for decision in this revision is whether there is any ground for interference within the scope of revision. Having heard the learned counsel, I am satisfied that there is no ground to interfere in this revision.

(2.) THE assessee's tax was assessed by the assessing authority to the best of his judgment made by him and several reasons were given by the assessing authority for taking this action. However, the assessee's appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) succeeded and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) after considering all the reasons which weighed with the assessing authority came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable basis for resorting to this mode of assessment. However, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessing authority's conclusion that in respect of the tax liability found due tax was payable at the rate of 12 per cent instead of 10 per cent and, therefore, the assessee was liable to pay the difference at the rate of 2 per cent. THE Tribunal thereafter in further appeal made by the department came to the conclusion that there was no defect in the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) accepting the explanations given by the assessee which had been rejected by the assessing authority.

(3.) THE last contention of the learned counsel for the department is that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal wrongly placed the burden on the department by requiring the department to prove that the account books were wrong. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as a whole does not give such an impression. THE Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has merely referred to certain circumstances indicating inaction of the departmental authorities to do that which could ordinarily be done for taking the view that the explanation given by the assessee is plausible and, therefore, acceptable. This does not amount to placing any extra burden on the department to do something which it was not required to do.