JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed for quashing order dated May 2, 2006, annexure P4, passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, “the Tribunal”) on appeal of the assessee.
2. The assessee is engaged in the business of resale of electric and electrical goods and is registered under the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, “the 1948 Act”) as a dealer. The petitioner had surrendered rupees twenty lacs as income during the course of survey carried out by the income-tax department under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the 1961 Act”). The petitioner had surrendered stock of Rs. 15 lacs as reflected in the trading account. The petitioner filed its returns for the year 2002-03 under Section 10(3) of the 1948 Act. The sales tax department while framing assessment took into consideration that the petitioner had surrendered stock of Rs. 15 lacs during the course of survey carried out by the income-tax department and there was discrepancy in the trading account and the account books of the petitioner. The Assessing Authority accordingly held that Rs. 15 lacs reflected as purchases in the account were not reflected in the sales of the petitioner’s firm. The Assessing Authority further held that in the trading/profit and loss account of the petitioner, the effect of suppressed purchases of Rs. 15 lacs was not reflected in the sales but the credit side was balanced by an entry of rupees twenty lacs as miscellaneous business income. According to the Assessing Authority this was deliberately done with a view to evade payment of sales tax. The Assessing Authority made addition of rupees twenty lacs in the gross turnover rejecting the returns filed and created an additional demand of Rs. 5,28,000 including penalty of Rs. 2,64,000. The appellate authority affirmed the said finding. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the matter ought to be re-examined by the Assessing Authority after giving opportunity to the assessee. It was observed that surrender of stocks before the income-tax authorities could not be made the sole basis for the assessment, as held by the honourable Supreme Court in Girdhari Lal Nannelal v. Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P. [1977] 39 STC 30.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal had erred in remanding the case to the assessing officer to decide the same afresh in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the apex court after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The apex court in Girdhari Lal Nannelal’s case [1977] 39 STC 30 while dealing with the similar controversy held as under:
The approach which may be permissible for imposing liability for payment of income-tax in respect of the unexplained acquisition of money may not hold good in sales tax cases. For the purpose of income-tax it may in appropriate cases be permissible to treat unexplained acquisition of money by the assessee to be the assessee’s income from undisclosed sources and assess him as such. As against that, for the purpose of levy of sales tax it would be necessary not only to show that the source of money has not been explained but also to show the existence of some material to indicate that the acquisition of money by the assessee has resulted from transactions liable to sales tax and not from other sources.
5. The honourable Supreme Court held that surrender of unexplained acquisition of money by the assessee before the income-tax authorities may not be the sole basis for assessment under sales tax law. The question, whether acquisition of money by the assessee has resulted from transactions liable to sales tax, will have to be examined.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was also confronted with the provisions of Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, “the 2005 Act”) which specifically provides that an appeal or revision lies to the High Court against any order passed by the Tribunal. But the counsel was unable to show as to how the writ petition would be maintainable in the wake of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision provided under the 2005 Act.
7. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that no interference is called for with the order of the Tribunal remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority for fresh assessment. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.