PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: M/S. H.M. ESUFALL, H. M. ABDULALI, SIYAGANJ, INDORE DATE OF JUDGMENT18/04/1973 BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. KHANNA, HANS RAJ CITATION: 1973 AIR 2266 1973 SCR (3)1005 1973 SCC (2) 137 CITATOR INFO : R 1977 SC 870 (9) RF 1987 SC 793 (7) ACT: Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act s. 19--Reassessment of escaped turnover whether can be made on basis of 'best judgment'--Best judgment' what is--Estimate of turnover in 'best judgment' assessment--Interference by court when justified. HEADNOTE: The assessee was a dealer in Iron and Steel in Madhya Pradesh. The Sales Tax Officer in making the original assessment for the period November 1, 1959 to October 20, 1960 accepted the, gross turnover disclosed by the assessee's accounts. Later the Flying Squad inspected the business premises of the assessee and found a bill book for the period September 1, 1960 to September 19, 1960. The bill book showed that the assessee had effected sales of iron and steel during that period of the value of Rs. 31,171.28 P. Those sales had not been entered in the books of account maintained by the assessee. On the basis of the information provided by the said bill book the Sales Tax Officer 'initiated proceedings under s. 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1958 as also under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 against the assessee. After hearing the assessee he made reassessments on best judgment basis and in estimating the assessee's turnover took into consideration the fact that the assessee had dealings outside his accounts of the value of Rs. 31,171.28P. during a period of 19 days. After the disposal of appeals filed by the assessee under the Act a reference was made to the High Court. Inter alia the High Court held that the estimate of taxable turnover under the local Act and the Central Act made by the assessing authority for the period from November 1, 1959 to October 20, 1960 on the basis of Rs. 31,171.28 Pas the escaped turnover for a period of 19 days was illegal and unjustified. According to the High Court the only moved escapement was Rs. 31,171.28 The penalty imposed on the assessee in respect of the turnover under the State Act was also set aside by the High Court. In appeal by the Revenue, HELD : (i) The distinction between a 'best judgment' assessment and assessment based on accounts submitted by an assessee must be borne in mind. Sometime there may be innocent or trivial mistakes in the accounts maintained by the assessee. There may be even certain unintended or unimportant omissions in those accounts, but yet the accounts may be accepted as genuine and substantially correct. In such cases, the assessments are made on the basis of the accounts maintained even though the assessing officer may add back to the account price of items that might have been omitted to be included in the accounts. In such a case, the assessment made is not a 'best-judgment' assessment. It is primarily made on the basis of the accounts maintained by the assessee. But when the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that no reliance can be placed on the accounts maintained by the assessee, he proceeds to assess the assessee on the basis of his 'best- judgment'. In doing so, he may take such assistance as the assessee's accounts may afford, he may also rely on other informations gathered by him as well as on the surrounding circumstances of the case. The assessment Made on the 1006 basis of assessee's accounts and those made on 'best- judgment' basis are 'totally different types of assessments. [1009 G] In the present case it was proved as well as admitted that the assessee's ;dealings outside his accounts during a period, of 19 days were of the nature of Rs. 31,171.28. From this circumstance it was open to the Sales-tax Officer to infer that the assessee had large scale dealings outside his accounts. It was obvious that he was maintaining false accounts to evade payment of sales-tax. In such a situation it was not possible for the Sales-tax Officer to find out precisely the turnover suppressed. He could only make an estimate of the suppressed turnover on the basis of the material before him. So long as the estimate made by him was not arbitrary and has nexus with facts discovered, the same could ,not be questioned. The High Court was wrong in assuming that the assessing authority must have material before it to prove exact turnover suppressed. The basis adopted by the Sales-tax Officer was a relevant one whether it was the most appropriate or not. Hence the High Court was not justified in interfering with the same. [1010 D] Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and U.P. v. Laxminarain Badridas., 5 I.T.R. 170, Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal v. The State of Bihar, 8 S.T..C. 770, Ganga Ram Balmokand v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, 5, I.T.R. 464 and State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty, 60 I.T.R. 239, applied. Commissioner of income-tax West Bengal v. Padamchand Ramgopal, 76 I.T.R. 719, distinguished. (ii) The contention that in a reassessment made under s. 19(1) of the Act the Sales Tax Officer is not competent to make a best judgment assessment was rightly rejected by the High Court. Reassessment is nothing but a fresh assessment, [1014 B] (iii) Since 'the estimate of turnover made by the Sales Tax Officer in his best judgment assessment was legal and justified the penalty imposed by him under the State Act must also be held to be in accordance with Law. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, 16 S. T. C. 54, relied on. JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 1068 & 1069
of 1970.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
December 2, 1968 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Misc.C.Case No. 84 of 1968.
Ram Panjwani and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
R. P. Agarwala, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEGDE J. These appeals by Special leave arise from the
decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a
consolidated Reference under S. 44 of the Madhya Pradesh
General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (to be hereinafter referred to
as the ‘State Act‘). That Reference was made by the Board
of Revenue, Gwalior, partly at the instance of the assessee
and partly at the instance of the
1007
Commissioner, of ‘Sales-tax, ‘Madhya Pradesh, Four questions
of law were refered to the High Court for its decision.
They ‘are
“(1) ‘Whether on the facts and circumstances
of the case the revised assessment enhancing
the taxable turnover under the State’law by
Rs. 2,50,000/’- and the taxable turnover under
the Central law by Rs. 1,00,000/on the basis
of the undisputed escape in the amount of Rs.
31,171.28 by. adopting the said amount of:
escaped turnover as the measure for
determining the quantum of enhancement for the
whole year was illegal, unjustified or
excessive?
(2) -Whether a best judgment
assessment could at all be made under s. 19(1)
1f the Act or whether revision of the
assessment should be confined to the quantum
of proved or admitted escaped turnover ?
(3) If the answer to the previous
question is that ,the revision in assessment
should be confined only to the quantum of
proved or admitted escape in turnover, was the
‘penalty of Rs. 2,000/- imposed on the footing
of the revision of the assessment for the
whole year legal and justified? and
(4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case the imposition of the penalty under
section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General
Sales Tax Act, 1958 read with Section 9(3) of
the Central Sales Tax Act was not legal?’
The first three questions were referred to the High Court at
the instance of the assessee and the last one was referred
at the instance of the Commissioner.
The High Court answered the 1st and the 3rd question in
favour of the assessee and the second and the fourth
question in favour of the Department. It opined :
” Our answer to the first question is that the
estimate of taxable turnover under the local
Act and the Central Act made by die assessing
authority for the period from 1st November
1959 to 20th October 1960 on the basis of Rs.
31,171.28 as the escaped turnover for a period
of 19 days was illegal and unjustified. The
escaped turnover proved in the present case is
only Rs. 31,171.28 and the assessee is liable
to be assessed under both the Acts only on the
taxable turnover comprised in the escaped
turnover of Rs. 31,171.28. Our answer to the
second question is that there can be a best-
judgment assessment under section 19(1) of the
local Act. In a best-judgment assessment the
quantum of escaped turnover would be that
which the assessing authority thinks is proved
1008
or is established. In other assessments the
quantum of escaped turnover would be the one
which the assessing authority finds proved
whether on the admission of the assessee or on
the material produced at the enquiry in which
the assessee has participated. The third
question is answered by saying that the
imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/- is, in view of
our answer to the first question, not legal.
Our answer to the fourth question is that a
penalty for escaped assessment under the
Central Act can be imposed under Section 19(1)
of the local Act.”
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the
Commissioner has brought these appeals. The assessee has
not appealed against that portion of the decision which went
against him.
The facts of the, case necessary for deciding the questions
of law arising for decision in these appeals, as could be
gathered from the Statement of the case may now be set out.
The assessee was a registered dealer under the ‘State Act‘
as well as the Central Sales Tax Act (which will hereinafter
be referred to as the ‘Central Act‘). He was a dealer in
Iron and Steel. In these appeals, we are concerned with his
turnover for the period November 1, 1959 to October 20,
1960. In that year he declared a gross turnover of Rs.
3,97,356/18 and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,10,246/63P. The
Sales-tax Officer determined his gross turnover at Rs.
3,97,357/- and taxable turnover at Rs. 1,21,567/-. Under
the ‘State Act‘ he assessed him in the sum of Rs. 3,743.34P.
on November 20, 1961. The assessee had not declared his
gross or taxable turnover in respect of the year in question
under the ‘Central Act‘. But the Sales-tax Officer deter-
mined his turnover under the ‘Central Act‘ by his order
dated December 8, 1962 at Rs. 22,916/- and levied on him a
tax of Rs. 252.04. The assessee did not appeal against these
orders. It appears that on September 19, 1963 the Flying
Squad inspected the business premises of the assessee and
found a Bill book for the period September 1, 1960 to
September 19, 1960. The Bill book showed that the assessee
had effected sales of iron and steel during that period of
the value of Rs. 31,171.28P. Those sales had not been
entered- in the books of account maintained by the assessee.
On the basis of the information provided by the bill book
seized, the Sales-tax Officer initiated proceedings under s.
19(1) of the ‘State Act‘ on January 15, 1964 by issuing the
prescribed notices to the assessee. He also initiated
proceedings under that section under the ‘Central Act‘ on
March 15, 1964. The notices in question were served on the
assessee on April 17, 1964 and March 19, 1964 respectively.
In response to these notices, the assessee submitted an
explanation denying that the; bill book in question
pertained to his dealings. Further, he also disputed the
correctness of the estimates made by the Sales-tax Officer
of
1009
his turnovers in the notices issued to him. After hearing
the assessee, the Sales-tax Officer reassessed the assessee
under the ‘State Ace on April 20, 1964 and under the
‘Central Act‘ on April 30, 1964. The reassessments were
made on the basis of ‘best judgment. In estimating the
assessee’s turnover, the Sales-tax Officer took into
consideration the fact that the assessee had dealings
outside his accounts of the value of Rs. 31,171.28 during a
period of 19 days. On the basis afforded by the facts
discovered, the Sales-tax Officer estimated the assessee’s
turnover under the ‘State Act‘ for the assessment period in
question at Rs.6,47,357/(3,97,357, + 2,50,000). Similarly
he reopened the assessee’s assessment under the ‘Central
Act, and estimated the turnover of the assessee under that
Act at Rs. 1,22,916/- (22,916+1,00,000). He also imposed on
the assessee a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under the ‘State Act‘
and a penalty of Rs. 1,500/- under the ‘Central Act‘ The
assessee appealed against the reassessments made on him as
well as against the penalties imposed on him. Those appeals
were dismissed by the Appellate authority. The assessee
took up the matter in second appeal to the Board of Revenue,
Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior. The Board of Revenue set aside the
penalty of Rs. 1500/-imposed under the ‘Central Act, but in
other respects. it rejected the appeal of the assessee.
Thereafter the Board, partly at the instance of the assessee
and partly at the instance of the Commissioner, submitted
the four questions set out earlier to the High Court.
Before proceeding to examine the contentions advanced on
behalf of the parties, it is necessary to clarify certain
aspects. It may be noted that the first assessments were
made by the Sales-tax Officer primarily on the basis of the
returns submitted by the assessee. In the proceedings
relating to those assessments, the Sales-tax Officer relied
on the books of account of the assessee. While making
reassessments on the basis of the information gathered from
the bill book seized, the Sales-tax Officer rejected the
accounts maintained by the assessee as unreliable and
assessed the assessee on the basis of his ‘best judgment’.
The distinction between a ‘best judgment’ assessment and
assessment based on the accounts submitted by an assessee
must be borne in mind. Sometime there may be innocent or
trivial mistakes in the accounts maintained by the assessee.
There may be even certain unintended or unimportant
omissions in those accounts; but yet the accounts may be
accepted as genuine and substantially correct. In such
cases, the assessments are made on the basis of the accounts
maintained even though the assessing officer may add back to
the accounts price of items that might have been omitted to
be included in the accounts. In such a case, the assessment
made is not a ‘best-judgment’ assessment. It is primarily
made on the basis of the accounts maintained by the
assessee. But when the assessing
1010
officer comes to the conclusion that no reliance can be
placed on the accounts maintained by the assessee, he
Proceeds to assess the assessee on the basis of his ‘best-
judgment’. In doing so, he may take such.assistance as the
assessee’s accounts may afford, he may also rely on other
information gathered by him- as well as an the
surrounding.circumstances of the case. The assessments made
on the basis of assessee’s accounts and those made on ‘best-
judgment basis are totally different types of assessments.
Now coming to the facts of this case it is necessary to
remember that at the initial stage, the assessee denied that
the bill book seized was his bill book and the entries
therein related to his dealings. He asserted that he had
nothing to do with the bill book in question and the entries
therein do not relate to his dealings. But at a later
stage, he conceded that that ‘bill book was his and the
entries therein related to his dealings. It is now proved
as well as admitted that his dealings outside his accounts
during a period of 19 days were of the value of Rs.
31,171.28. From this circumstance, it was open to the Sales-
tax Officer to infer that the assessee bad large scale
dealings outside his accounts. The assessee has neither
pleaded nor established only justifiable reason for not
entering in his accounts the dealings noted in the bill book
seized. It is obvious that he was maintaining false
accounts to evade payment of sales-tax. In such a situation
it was not possible for the Sales-tax Officer to find out
precisely the turnover suppressed. He could only make an
estimate of the suppressed turnover on the basis of the
material before him. So long as the estimate made by him is
not arbitrary and has nexus with facts discovered, the name
cannot be questioned. In the very nature of things the
estimate made may be an over-estimate or an under,-estimate.
But that is no ground for interfering with his ‘best
judgment’. It is true that the basis adopted by the officer
should be relevant to the estimate made. The High .Court
was wrong in assuming that the assessing authority must have
material before it to prove the exact turnover suppressed.
If that is true there is no question of best-,judgment. The
assessee cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own
illegal acts. It was his duty to place all facts truthfully
before the assessing authority. If he fails to do his duty,
he cannot be allowed to call upon the assessing authority to
prove conclusively what turnover, he had suppressed. That
fact must be within his personal knowledge. Hence the
burden of proving that fact is on him. No circumstance has
been placed before the assessing authority to show that the
assessee’s dealings during 1-9-1960 to 19-9-1960 outside his
accounts were due to some exceptional circumstance or that
they were proportionately more than his dealings outside his
accounts, during the remaining periods. The assessing
authority could not have been in possession of any correct
measure to find out the escaped
1011
turnover during the periods 1-11-1959 to 31-8-1960 and 20-9-
1960 to 20-10-1960. The task of the.assessing authority in
finding out the escaped turnover was by no means easy. In
estimating any escaped turnover it is inevitable that there
is, some guesswork. The assessing authority while making
the ‘best-judgment’ assessment no doubt should arrive at its
conclusion without any bias and on rational basis. That
authority should not be vindictive or capricious. If the
estimate made by the assessing authority is a bona fide
estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact that
there is no good proof in support of that estimate is
immaterial. Prima facie, the assessing- authority is the
best judge of the situation. It is his ‘best-judgment’ and
not of any-one else’s. The High Court could not substitute
its ‘best-judgment’ for that of the assessing authority. In
the case of ‘best-judgment’ assessments, the courts will
have to first see whether the accounts maintained ‘by the
assessee were rightly rejected as unreliable. If they come
to the conclusion that they were rightly rejected, the next
question that arises for consideration is whether the basis
adopted in estimating the turnover has a reasonable nexus
with the estimate made. If the basis adopted is held to be
a relevant basis even though the courts may think that it is
not the most appropriate basis, the estimate made by the
assessing authority cannot be disturbed. In the present
case, there is no dispute that the assessee’s accounts were
rightly discarded. We do not agree with the High Court that
it is the duty of the assessing authority to adduce proof in
support of its estimate. The basis adopted by the Sales-tax
Officer was a relevant one whether it was the most
appropriate or not. Hence the High Court was not justified
in interfering with the same,.
The jaw relating to ‘best-judgment’ assessment is the same
both in the case of income-tax assessment as well as in the
case of sales-tax assessment. The scope of ‘best-judgment’
assessment under the income-tax law came up for
consideration before the Judicial Committee as early as 1937
in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and U.P. v.
Laxminarain Badridas. (1). Therein Lord Russel of Killowen
speaking for the Judicial Committee observed (at p. 180) :
“The Officer is to make an assessment to the
best of hi,; judgment against a person who is
in default as regards supplying information.
He must not. act dishonestly, or vindictively
or capriciously because he must exercise
judgment in the matter. He must make what he
honestly believes to be a fair estimate of the
proper figure of assessment, and for this
purpose he must, their Lordship think, be able
to take into consideration local knowledge and
repute in regard to the assessee’s circum-
5.1.7.R 70.
1012
stances, and his own knowledge of previous
returns by land assessments of the assessee,
and all other matters which he thinks will
assist him in arriving at a fair and proper
estimate, and though there must necessarily
be .guess-work in the matter, it must be
honest guess-work. In that sense, too, the
assessment must be to some extent arbitrary.”
In Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal v. The State of Bihar(1)
,a case arising under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, the law
relating to ‘best-judgment’ assessment was examined at
length by this Court. Therein S. K. Das J. speaking for the
Court observed (at p. 778) :
“No doubt it is true that when the returns and
the books of account are rejected, the
assessing officer must ,make an estimate, and
to that extent he must make a guess; but the
estimate must be related to some evidence or
material and it must be something more than
mere suspicion. To use the words of Lord
Ruessel of Killowen again, “he must make what
he honestly believes to be a fair estimate of
the proper figure of assessment” and for this
purpose he must take into consideration such
materials as the assessing officer has before
him, including the assessee’s circumstances
knowledge of previous returns and all other
matters which the assessing officer thinks
will assist him in arriving at a fair and
proper estimate.”
(emphasis supplied)
Proceeding further the learned judge quoted with approval
the observations of Din Mohamad J. in Ganga Ram Balmokand v.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab(2) :
“It cannot be denied that there must be some
material before the Income-tax Officer on
which to base his estimate, but no hard and
fast rule can be laid down by the Court to
define what sort of material is required on
which his estimate can be founded.”
After quoting those observations, the learned
judge proceeded to observe :
‘,With that observation we generally agree.
If, in this case, the Sales Tax Authorities
had based their estimate on some material
before them, no objection could have been
taken.”
Applying4 the rule laid down in Raghubar Mandal Harihar
Mandal’s case (supra), to the facts of the present case it,
is seen
(I) 8S.T.C-770. (2) 51.T.R. 464.
1013
that the Sales-tax Officer had material before him to find
out, how. much turnover had escaped assessment during a
period of 19 days. On the basis of that material he
estimated the escaped turnover for the entire year. Hence
it cannot be said that there was no basis for the estimate
made by the Sales-tax Officer. It may be that his estimate
was an over-estimate or an under-estimate but it cannot be
said that the estimate was without any basis. In making
that estimate, there was an element of guess-work which was
inevitable in the circumstances of the case. If the Sales-
tax Officer was compelled to adopt a rule of thumb which in
a sense is an arbitrary rule, assessee was entirely
responsible for that situation.
In State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty,(1) this Court speaking
through Subba Rao J. (as he then was) observed (at p. 244 of
the Report) :
“The limits of the power are implicit in the
expression “best of his judgment”. Judgment
is a faculty to decide matters with wisdom
truly and legally. Judgment does not depend
upon the arbitrary caprice of a judge, but on
settled and invariable principles of justice.
Though there is an element of guesswork in a
“best judgment assessment”. It shall not be a
wild one, but shall have a reasonable nexus to
the available material and the circumstances
of each case.”
The question before us is whether there is a reasonable
nexus between the basis adopted by the assessing authority
and the estimate of escaped turnover made. We have no doubt
that there is such a nexus.
On behalf of the assessee, reliance was placed on the
decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax., West
Bengal v. Padamchand Ramgopal(1). Therein, while
investigating into the case of the assessee, the Income-tax
Officer found two insignificant mistakes in the assessees
accounts relating to the assessment year 1953-54. No
mistakes were found in the accounts relating to the
assessment years 1954-55 to 1957-58. Merely because there
were some insignificant mistakes in the accounts maintained
by the assessee for the assessment year 1953-54, the Income-
tax Officer rejected the accounts of the assessee for all
the concerned assessment years and added to the income
returned half the amount of gross receipts shown by the
assessee under the head “interest” for each of the years as
escaped income. The Tribunal upheld the addition ‘but the
High Court came to the conclusion that the additions made by
the Income-tax Officer were quite arbitrary. This Court
agreed with that view. We do not think that the said
decision lends any support to the assessee’s contention.
(1) 60 I.T.R.239 (1) 76 I.T.R.719.
1014
For the reasons mentioned above, We are unable to agree
with .the High Court that the Sales.-tax Officer. had
arbitrarily assessed the assessee.
It was next contended that in are assessment under,s. 19(1)
of the Act, Sale-tax Officer was- not competent to- make.
‘best. judgment assessment’ as no such power was conferred
on him under the said section. This contentions had been
rejected by the; High Court and the assessee had not
appealed against that part of the judgment. Be that as it
may, even though s. 19 does not in specific terms confer on
the assessing authority power to make ‘best-judgment
assessment’ that section specifically says that
the .assessment made under that section is a reassessment.
Section 18 deals with assessment of tax. Section 18 (4)
says
“If a registered dealer-
X X (a) x x x x (b) x x x x (c) x x x x
(d) has not maintained any account or has not
regularly employed any method of accounting,
or if the.method employed is such that in the
opinion of the Commissioner assessment cannot
properly be made on the basis thereof; the
Commissioner shall in the prescribed manner
assess the dealer to the best of his
judgment.”
What is true of the assessment must also be true of
reassessment because reasessment is nothing but a fresh
assessment. When reassessment is made under s. 19, the
former assessment is completely reopened and in its place
fresh assessment is made. While reassessing a dealer, the
assessing authority does not merely assess him on the
escaped turnover but it assesses him on his total estimated
turnover. While making reassessment under s. 19, if the
assessing authority has. no power to make best judgment
assessment, all that the assessee need do to escape
reassessment is to refuse to file a return or refuse to
produce his account-books. If the contention taken on
behalf of the assessee, is correct, the assessee can escape
his liability to be reassessed by adopting an obstructive
attitude. It is difficult to conceive that such could be
the position in law.
Before making reassessment, the assessing authority has to,
under rule 33(1) framed under the Act call upon the assessee
to produce his books of account and other documents which
the assessing authority may require and any evidence which
the dealer may wish to produce in support of his objection.
When such a notice is issued to the dealer, he may appear
before the assessing authority on the date fixed in the
notice and prefer his objections
1015
and produce such evidence as he may think necessary. Sub-
rule (2) of rule 33 provides that if the assessee appears in
response to the notice under s. 3 3 (1)., the assessing
authority may make reassessment, if necessary, only after,
considering the objections raised by the dealer and after,
examining such evidence as may be produced by,, him,. It is
important to, note that in the notice which the assessing
authority is required to issued to the dealer in form 16,
the extent of the escaped turnover as estimated, by the
assessing authority has to be specified. The procedure laid
down in rule 33 could not have been a mere empty formality.
If the assessee’s contention is right in order to escape
reassessment all that the assessee need do is to ignore the
notice issued under rule 33(1) and refuse to co-operate with
the assessing authority in the reassessment proceedings. We
are unable to accept that is the true position in law.
In our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court
in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, (1)
relied on by the assessee was not correctly decided.
For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals,
vacate the answers given by the High Court to Questions Nos.
1 and 3 and answer those questions in favour of the
Department i.e. that the estimate of taxable turnover under
the ‘State Act and the ‘Central Act‘ made by the assessing
authority for the period from November 1, 1959 to October
20, 1960 on the basis of Rs. 31,171.28 as the escaped
turnover for a period of 19 days was legal and justified and
consequently the penalty of Rs. 2,000/imposed on the
assessee was in accordance with law. The assessee shall pay
the costs of the Department both in this Court and in the
High Court.
G.C.
Appeals allowed.
16 S.T.C.5
1016