IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST Rev No. 35 of 2003()
1. M/S. RADIANT BATTERIES,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.VELAYUDHAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :19/06/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.Nos.35, 83, 86 & 90 of 2003
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 19th day of June, 2007
ORDER
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
All these revision petitions are clubbed together, heard and disposed of
by this common order.
2. The assessee calls in question the orders passed by the Kerala
Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode in T.A.Nos.355, 356, 357 and 358 of
1995. These revision petitions pertain to the assessment years 1986-87 to
1989-90. The assessee is a dealer registered under the provisions of the
Kerala General Sales Tax Act. He is doing business in the manufacture and
service of batteries. For the assessment years in question, he had filed his
annual returns and declared the actual turnover and the taxable turnover. The
assessing authority keeping in view the report of the inspecting wing of the
department had rejected the returns filed by the assessee and had passed a
best judgment assessment. While doing so, the assessing authority had
computed the tax liability by adding the amount of Rs.4,31,213.58 to the total
turnover and had imposed a tax liability to the tune of Rs.80,353.00 and the
said order was again revised on the ground that the purchase turnover under
Section 5A of the Act had been omitted while completing the original
assessment.
3. In the appeals filed by the assessee, the appellate authority had
modified the orders of assessment passed for the aforesaid assessment years
by adding only three times the suppressed turnover.
4. The revenue had carried the matter by way of second appeal before
the Tribunal. The Tribunal in order to come to a proper conclusion had directed
the assessing authority to produce the assessment records. In spite of the said
direction, the assessing authority had failed to produce the assessment
records. In the absence of those records, the Tribunal once again quantified
the tax liability of the assessee by making yet another best judgment
assessment. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal the assessee is
before us in these revision petitions.
5. The assessee has raised several questions of law for our
consideration and decision. We do not intend to go into those questions
framed by the assessee for the reason that when the Tribunal had directed the
assessing authority to produce the assessment records to verify the
correctness or otherwise of the additions made, in the absence of such books
of accounts the Tribunal would not be justified in once again passing a best
judgment assessment, that too in the appeals filed by the revenue.
6. As we have already stated, the assessing authority after rejecting
the books of accounts and based on the report of the Intelligence wing of the
department passed a best judgment assessment and that had been modified
by the first appellate authority. If for any reason the revenue was aggrieved by
the said orders passed by the first appellate authority, it ought to have
produced the assessment records before the Tribunal to justify the additions
made by it. Since that had not been done, the only course that was open to the
Tribunal was to confirm the orders passed by the first appellate authority. That
has not been done in the instant case. Therefore, we have no other alternative
but to allow the revision petitions filed by the assessee and set aside the orders
passed by the Tribunal and confirm the orders passed by the first appellate
authority. Ordered accordingly.
7. In view of the order passed in the revision petitions, the relief
sought in the civil miscellaneous petitions need not be considered by this Court.
Accordingly the said C.M.Ps. are rejected.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.T.SANKARAN)
JUDGE
vns