Sales Tax Appeal No. 121 of 2004 and Cross Appeal No. 2678 of 2012. Case: Hotel Sujatha Deluxe, Mudalagi, Gokak Taluka Vs State of Karnataka. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
Case Number | Sales Tax Appeal No. 121 of 2004 and Cross Appeal No. 2678 of 2012 |
Counsel | For the Appellant: Sri Arvind B. Udoshi, Sales Tax Consultant for Appellant and For the Respondent: Sri B. Vasanth Kumar, State Representative for Respondent |
Judges | Basavaraj S. Sappannavar, DJM and P. Puttaraju, CTM |
Issue | Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 12(3), 22 |
Citation | 2013 (77) KarLJ 268 |
Judgement Date | August 21, 2013 |
Court | Karnataka Appellate Tribunal |
Judgment:
P. Puttaraju, CTM
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the appeal order dated 7th January, 2004 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum Division, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Authority' or for short, 'FAA') in Case No. JC/AP/BG/KST/204/2002-2003, wherein the FAA has modified the assessment order dated 6th October, 2001 concluded by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments-II), Belgaum (for short, the 'AA') under the Act for the year ending 31-3-1999 (19981999). The State has preferred cross appeal praying to restore the orders of theAA.
2. The relevant facts and grounds leading to this appeal can be alluded thus:
(i) The appellant is a partnership firm and initially the assessment for the impugned year has been concluded ex parte which has been cancelled by virtue of Section 12-D of the Act by the AA. After the cancellation of the ex parte assessment, the AA has concluded the assessment to the best of his judgment under Section 12(3) of the Act by utili sing the inspection report forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence) (for brevity, 'IA'). The IA has inspected the business premises of the appellant on 8th March, 1999 and has seized a note book containing sales transactions which are not reflected in the books of account. The unaccounted sales of IMFL and Fenny is at Rs. 3,60,800/- and Rs. 1,97,000/- respectively as per the report. After due verification of the books of account and following the due procedure, the AA has concluded the assessment which has been carried before the FAA, who in turn modified the said assessment order.
(ii) Aggrieved by the said impugned appeal order, the present appeal is preferred. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the AA has erred in solely relying on the report of the IA without verifying the correctness of the said report. The second contention is that the seized note book does not belong to the appellant though admittedly it was found in the business premises of the appellant. As the said note book does not belong to the appellant, the question of estimation of suppression as done by the AA and subsequently modified by the FAA in his appeal order is incorrect and the statement has been recorded by the IA under duress.
(iii) Reliance is placed on the decision rendered in M. Sadanand Rao v State of Karnataka, 1992(36) KarLJ 574 (HC) (DB): (1993)90 STC 115 (Kar.) (DB) and the decision of this Tribunal in National Trading Company, 1995 KarLJ (Tri. Supp.) 137 (sic) and Kalleswara Trading Company v State of Karnataka, 1975 KarLJ (Tri. Supp.) 251 (DB) respectively. Based on these facts, it has been submitted that the person-in-charge who signed the report was made to accept and it has been done under duress. Therefore, the learned Counsel argues that the orders of the FAA are liable to be set aside.
(iv)...
To continue reading
Request your trial