M/s. P.C. Ittymathew & Sons Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law)
EmailUnaccounted sales – Estimation of profit and turnover – Disclosure of additional income in income-tax assessment – Effect on sales tax assessment – Sales tax authorities taking into account the additional income disclosed by dealer in working out the profit from unaccounted sales and estimation of turnover – First Appellate authority sustaining the conclusion of the as-sessing officer – Tribunal however disagreeing with the finding on the ground that the sales tax authorities had not established that the income disclosed by the assessee dealer had been derived from business transactions liable to sales tax – High Court reversing the finding of the Tribunal – Validity. Held Tribun-al’s finding being essentially finding of facts no question of law was involved and therefore High Court erred in upsetting the order of the Tribunal.
(Para 4)
1. The assessee is the appellant. He disclosed an additional income of Rs.1,47,979.69p to the Income Tax authorities for the Assessment Year 1984-85. Upon the basis of this disclosure, the assessing officer for the purposes of sales tax said:
“The dealer had disclosed an additional income of Rs.1,47,979.69p consequent on raid by the Income-tax authorities on the premises of the dealer on 21.2.85. This is the profit derived from unaccounted sales. The profit works out to 1.93%. Based on this turnover will be estimated at Rs.78,67,305/-.”
His conclusion was sustained by the first appellate authority but set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied upon this court’s decision in Girdhari Lal Mannelal v. The Sales Tax Com-missioner, Madhya Pradesh (39 S.T.C.30) wherein it was held that it was for the Sales Tax authorities to show the existence of material to indicate that the acquisition of money by the asses-see had come from transactions liable to sales tax and not from other sources. The Tribunal found that the Sales Tax authori-ties in the present case had not established that the income disclosed by the assessee had been derived from business trans-actions liable to sales tax. The presumption of the assessing authority in this behalf was belied by the fact that the Income Tax authorities had accepted the sales turnover declared by the assessee.
2. The Revenue preferred a civil tax revision case before the High Court of Kerala against the order of the Tribunal and the High Court reversed the same.
3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that no question of law was involved and that, therefore, the High Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Tribunal which was essentially a decision on fact. In any event, the order of the High Court was erroneous having regard to the fact that the assessing authorities had not been able to show that the additional income had come from transactions liable to sales tax.
4. Clearly, no question of law arose. The High Court was, therefore, not entitled in a tax revision case to upset the order of the Tribunal. Apart from that, the High Court does not appear to have noticed that the assessing authority and relied on no material which indicated that the additional income had come from transactions that were liable to sales tax. It was merely a presumption on his part and that presumption could not rightly, be drawn.
5. Insofar as the consignment sale is concerned, there is an order of remand. We do not think it necessary to interfere there-with.
6. The civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The decision of the Tribunal is restored.
7. No order as to costs.
