Skip to content


Shanker Lal Murlidhar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.R. No. 291 of 1974
Judge
Reported in[1979]43STC483(All)
AppellantShanker Lal Murlidhar
RespondentCommissioner of Sales Tax
Appellant Advocate R.C. Sharma, Adv.
Respondent Advocate The Standing Counsel
Cases ReferredMadhya Pradesh v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali
Excerpt:
- - 1,12,437.00. after the revision filed against this order failed, the additional judge (revisions), sales tax, in pursuance of the direction issued by this court has referred the following question of law for our opinion :whether there is any material for the assessment of the suppressed inter-state sales at rs......sales tax act. this was enhanced to rs. 2,12,437 after the sales tax officer had rejected the account books. on appeal, it was reduced to rs. 1,12,437.00. after the revision filed against this order failed, the additional judge (revisions), sales tax, in pursuance of the direction issued by this court has referred the following question of law for our opinion :whether there is any material for the assessment of the suppressed inter-state sales at rs. 1,12,437 2. while rejecting the account books of the assessee, the sales tax officer found that the suppressed sales made by the assessee in one day alone was rs. 6,045.76. this figure was obtained by reference of two bills found at the time of survey. taking this fact into consideration, he estimated the suppressed turnover at rs......
Judgment:

C.S.P. Singh, J.

1. The assessee dealt in mill-made cloth, hessian and iron hoops, etc., during the year 1966-67. It disclosed a turnover of Rs. 12,437.00 for purposes of taxation under the Central Sales Tax Act. This was enhanced to Rs. 2,12,437 after the Sales Tax Officer had rejected the account books. On appeal, it was reduced to Rs. 1,12,437.00. After the revision filed against this order failed, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court has referred the following question of law for our opinion :

Whether there is any material for the assessment of the suppressed inter-State sales at Rs. 1,12,437

2. While rejecting the account books of the assessee, the Sales Tax Officer found that the suppressed sales made by the assessee in one day alone was Rs. 6,045.76. This figure was obtained by reference of two bills found at the time of survey. Taking this fact into consideration, he estimated the suppressed turnover at Rs. 2,00,000 and added it to the returned turnover. The appellate authority reduced the suppressed turnover to Rs. 1,00,000. Counsel for the assessee contended that the suppressed turnover for one day did not constitute any material on which an estimate of suppressed turnover to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000 could be made. We are unable to accept this argument. Once the account books were rejected, the Sales Tax Officer had to make an estimate of the turnover. The estimate has undoubtedly to be made on some relevant material, but as a matter of necessity there is always an element of guesswork in an estimate. In the present case, as the suppressed sale of the assessee for one day alone amounted to Rs. 6,045.76, it cannot be said that the estimate made was not supported by any material on the record. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali [1973] 32 S.T.C. 77 (S.C.), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have taken the view that the suppressed sale of a particular period can form the basis for an estimate of turnover for the whole year. Thus, there was material on the record for making the estimate of the escaped turnover of the assessee.

3. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its cost, which is assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel's fee is assessed at the same figure.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //