Y. BHASKAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE assessee, who is the appellant filed this appeal assailing the order of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dealing in fire works. The sale of the fire works is only a seasonal business during the period of Deepavali. The appellant's premises was inspected on 25. 10. 1991 and it was found that the appellant has not maintained the accounts on 24. 10. 1991 and on 25. 10. 1991 and found shortage of stock to the tune of rs. 61,178/- for which the assessee has not issued sale bills. A notice was issued and the offence was compounded and a sum of Rs. 2,000/ was levied as the compounding fee. Thereafterwards, the assessee filed returns showing the turn over as Rs. 9,76,224. 50. The Assessing authority has found that the current accounts are not properly maintained and the accounts are supported by required bills. However added Rs. 30,600/- towards possible omissions on the ground that on inspection "of the premises of the assessee by the A. C. T. O. Rs. 61,178/- was found as escaped turn over. Therefore, the accounts are not acceptable and passed the assessment order.

( 3 ) ASSAILING the said order, the assessee filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority found that the assessee has filed the details of accounts in support of his returns along with the required goods and produced Cash Book, Ledger, Stock Book, Purchase Bills, Sale bills etc. , before the Assessing Authority. The Inspecting Authority as well as the Assessing Authority have not found any omission of non accounting of purchases or sales. The appellant has effected the major portion of the purchases in the course interstate trade. The books of accounts cannot be rejected on the only ground that the assessee did not maintain stock register as decided in the case of Kheera Shoe Co. reported in 35 STR-Page 220. The appellant has maintained the Stock Register apart from other Books of accounts and at the time of inspection on 25. 10. 1991, he has written the said register upto 23. 10. 1991. The estimation made by the assessiny authority at Rs. 30,600/- is not based on proper evidence. The assessing authority has not recorded as to why he is enhancing rs. 30,600/- and the basis thereof. The assessing authority has found the books of accounts in a verifiable manner and no omission in the same are noticed by him. The appellant represented that the inspection was conducted at the peak season of Deepavali and therefore they were busy in attending to the customers and therefore, the stock register was not posted for only one day. The mere non-issue of sale bills itself will not enable the assessing authority to enhance the turn over as made in the assessment order. In the absence of substantive evidence that the assessee has suppressed sales or purchases, the estimation made has to be considered is not sustainable in law. The appellate authority by giving the reasons allowed the appeal and modified the impugned assessment order by deleting the turn over of Rs. 30,600/- added by the assessing authority and also set aside the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- levied by the assessing authority. Against that, a revision is filed. The Revisional authority has stated as follows:"the contentions of the Respondents are examined. It is a fact that the Respondent has accounted the stock difference on 7. 11. 1991 vide Bill No. 79. But the inspection was conducted by the Department on 25. 10. 91 and but for this inspection, the entire stock of Rs. 61,000/- would have gone unaccounted. Considering this aspect, the Assessing Authority has made an estimation of rs. 30,600/- only and the action of the First Appellate Authority in setting aside the same without considering all the aspects is not justifiable. However, I feel the proposed estimation at 5 times the stock difference is unwarranted and it would be more appropri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document