Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 811 (KER)

A. P. ABDUL GAFOOR v. STATE OF KERALA

2006-11-27

K.P.BALACHANDRAN, P.R.RAMAN

body2006
JUDGMENT K. P. Balachandran, J. – The petitioner is a dealer in lime shell. These revisions relate to the assessments under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 respectively for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The petitioner did not submit returns for both the assessment years. The inquiry conducted by the assessing authority revealed that during the assessment years in issue, the petitioner had effected inter-State sales of lime shell. Despite notices issued, the petitioner disclosed only local sales of lime shell and suppressed inter-State sales and the value disclosed in the bills was also found to be very low. As many as nine lorry loads of inter-State sales were detected during the period of two months, namely, during January 1999 and February 1999 during the assessment year 1998-99 and the value shown in the bills was also below rupees two thousand, when the value shown for similar sales by co-operative societies was rupees eight thousand and nine thousand. It was also detected that the petitioner was maintaining two sets of bills. For reason of the above defects, the assessing authority, after issuing pre-assessment notices and considering the objections of the petitioner, assessed the petitioner to Central sales tax as proposed, estimating the inter-State sales at 240 lorry loads during 1998-99 and fixing the sale price at rupees eight thousand per load. The assessment so made was challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but was futile. The matter was further challenged before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and directed the assessing authority to modify the assessment adopting the value at rupees five thousand per lorry load. The contentions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner in relation to the assessment year 1998-99 are that the estimation of value at rupees five thousand per load is without any valid material and that the estimated sale of 240 lorry loads, based on the suppression detected, is improper, as the sale at the same rate will not be there, every month in an year. For the assessment year 1999-2000, on the basis of the inter-State sales conducted during the months from April to August 1999 (both months inclusive), which showed sales not less than twelve lorry loads per month, the assessment was completed, estimating the total inter-State sales at 144 lorry loads at rupees eight thousand per load. For the assessment year 1999-2000, on the basis of the inter-State sales conducted during the months from April to August 1999 (both months inclusive), which showed sales not less than twelve lorry loads per month, the assessment was completed, estimating the total inter-State sales at 144 lorry loads at rupees eight thousand per load. On appeal, the appellate authority directed the assessing authority to adopt the value accepted in the assessment file in relation to another dealer Mohammed Ashraf or at rupees five thousand per load, whichever is higher, in the place of rupees eight thousand per load, adopted by the assessing authority. On further appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, considering also the contention of the petitioner that he had not transacted any business during the period from November 1999 to March 2000, which fact the assessing authority could not establish otherwise, directed inter-State sales to be restricted to eighty four lorry loads and re-fixing the value at Rs. 3,500 per load and to modify the assessment accordingly. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not advance any valid contention in S.T. Rev. No. 311 of 2005 in relation to the assessment year 1999-2000, as the contention of the petitioner had, practically, been admitted by the Tribunal and no material could be pointed out either to hold that the estimation of number of loads or the value adopted is excessive. Hence, we are of the view that the challenge in the said revision is devoid of merit. All the same, the position is not the same in S.T. Rev. No. 301 of 2004 in relation to the assessment year 1998-99. The undisclosed sales of lime shell detected for the months of January 1999 and February 1999, during the assessment year 1998-99 and the undisclosed inter-State sales during the months of April to August 1999, during the assessment year 1999-2000 show that sales of lime shell is there during all the months from January to August in an year. As regards the sales for the period from September to December, the petitioner has not been able to assign any reason to take the view that there will not be sales of lime shell during those months. In fact, even for the assessment year 1999-2000, his case is only that he did not do business from November 1999 to March 2000, which contention was favourably considered by the Tribunal. In fact, even for the assessment year 1999-2000, his case is only that he did not do business from November 1999 to March 2000, which contention was favourably considered by the Tribunal. He has no such case for the assessment year 1998-99. Hence, we are of the view that the number of lorry loads of inter-State sales estimated for the assessment year 1998-99 does not deserve any interference. All the same, the value directed by the Tribunal to be adopted for the assessment year 1999-2000 is Rs. 3,500 per lorry load and the Revenue has not assailed the said order of the Tribunal. It cannot be assumed that the value during the previous year will be more than that, so as to uphold the order of the Tribunal, adopting the value at rupees five thousand per load in relation to the assessment year 1998-99. Hence, the value adopted for the assessment year 1999-2000 is to be adopted for the assessment year 1998-99 as well. In the result, we dismiss S.T. Rev. No. 311 of 2005, but allow S.T. Rev. No. 301 of 2004 in part and direct the assessment to be modified adopting the value for the inter-State sales of lime shell at Rs. 3,500 per load as had been adopted for the subsequent year 1999-2000. In all other respects, Sales Tax Revision No. 301 of 2004 is dismissed.