Judgment:
REVISION filed before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal to revise the order dated 27.11.2001 made in T.A.No.928/1999 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai for the assessment year 1992-93. After the abolition of the Tribunal, the matters have been transferred to this Court.
C O M M O N O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)
1. The assessee is on revision as against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (Additional Bench) dated 27.11.2001 in T.A.No.928/99, relating to the assessment year 1992-93.
2. It is seen from the documents placed before this court that there was an inspection made by the Enforcement Wing Officials, Madras North on 20.4.1993 in the business premises of the assessee. At the time of the inspection, the following irregularities were noticed.
i. Rough Day Book maintained and produced was found posted upto 17.4.93 only;
ii. No stock book has been maintained and produced for inspection.
iii. Form 8 register has not been produced for inspection
iv. No inventory for the opening stock value as on 1.4.93
v. Verification of actual declared stock value with opening stock, subsequent purchases and sales revealed an excess stock amounting to Rs.55,815.00/-
3. The inspecting authorities recovered one Delivery Note Book pertaining to the business and on a check of the same with the accounts of the assessee, the Revenue found that the delivery challans from 2401 to 2500 had been issued during the period in question. The assessee stated that the delivery challan upto 1900 had been used for the previous assessment years and the challans starting from 1901 upto 2100 had been used for the assessment year 1991-92. Verification of the accounts would show that the last of the delivery challan was 2473 and the connected bill No is 609 dated 25.3.1993. In the circumstances, a notice was issued to the assessee regarding the proposed revision of assessment estimating the turnover in respect of the D.C.Nos.1 to 2457.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who sustained the revision of assessment and thereby dismissed the appeal. The assessee preferred a further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which once again confirmed the order of the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the present Tax Case (Revision).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even though there might be some discrepancy between the sale invoice and the delivery challan as regards the date, however, the other details relating to the business transactions were furnished before the assessing officer right from 1986 onwards. The estimation made by the assessing authority in respect of the business transactions covered by the delivery challan Nos. 1 to 2457 is totally whimsical and not based on any material. Thus, the assessment made and confirmed by the Tribunal are devoid of any merits. Consequently the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before the Court.
7. It is seen from the reply affidavit filed by the assessee before the Assessing Authority in response to the notice that it had a contract to supply iron steel to Railways and the actual supply was only after the Railways gave a laboratory report and inspection certificate as large quantity of the materials had to be supplied. Thus, based on the clearance from the ICF, the petitioner had supplied the iron and steel materials which are local purchase and therefore there are no variation between the delivery challans produced by the assessee. In any event, the difference in the invoice number and the delivery challan number would have arisen due to various reasons like materials sent earlier through delivery challans as per the procedure explained relating to ICF and due to clerical error in noting the correct invoice number. Thus, there is no contemptuous conduct to call for an estimation.
8. A reading of the notice would show that admittedly the petitioner had not maintained stock book at the time of inspection as well as the inventory for the opening stock value as on 1.4.1993 and a verification of actual declared stock value with opening stock, subsequent purchases and sales revealed an excess stock amounting to Rs.55,815/-. The seized materials also revealed that there was difference in date between the sale invoices and the delivery challans. The proprietor of the assessee company in the statement before the Enforcement Wing has admitted such a discrepancy.
9. In these circumstances, going by the fact that the petitioner had not maintained regularly the rough day book and the stock book on the particular date, besides there were discrepancies in the delivery challan and noting the same in the invoice, the case herein certainly calls for estimation. However, we agree with the assessee's contention that the details were placed before the authorities concerned, as regards the delivery challans used in the earlier assessment years. In view of the same, the sale transactions covered under the delivery challans in respect of the other assessment years will not come under scrutiny for the purpose of the assessment year 1992-93. Hence, the stand of the assessing officer that the sale value in bill No.600 for the goods transported in D.C.No.2458 can be taken as a yard stick for estimating the sales covered by the entirety of delivery challans and on that basis making a best judgment assessment by the Assessing Officer could not sustained.
10. The assessee had stated that for the year 1992-93, the delivery challans started from 1901 to 2100. Going by the fact that the delivery challans at the time of the inspection on 20.4.1993 showed from Sl. Nos.2101 to 2473 as relating to the assessment year 1993-94, the same need not be taken into consideration for the purpose of upholding the order of assessment, relating to the assessment year 1992-93.
11. In the circumstances, taking note of the fact that the assessee had filed his return eversince 1986-87 onwards, we hold that the order of the Tribunal estimating the variation right from D.C.Nos.1 to 2457 cannot be sustained. On the other hand, the Department is justified in making the assessment relating to the delivery challan from 1901 to 2000 and the last of the delivery challan viz., 2458 pertaining to the assessment year 1993-94 may be considered as a yardstick for the purpose of making the best judgment assessment. In the above circumstances, while disposing of the revision, the assessing authorities are directed to redo the exercise on the above terms. No costs.