Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.41 seconds)The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981
In the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, a duty was cast on the Revenue to prove that the assessees factually collected more than the ostensible consideration shown in the accounts. There is no finding in any of the orders of the statutory authorities that the revision-petitioners/assessees factually collected or obtained more than the amount shown in the accounts or bills. Such a finding is essential to sustain the assessments under Section 19B of the Act. In the absence of such a finding, we hold that reliance placed on Section 19B of the Act was misplaced. On this ground as well, the assessments made by invoking Section 19B of the Act are illegal. The Appellate Tribunal was in error in sustaining the assessments under Section 19B of the Act without entering a definite finding that the assessees in fact collected or obtained more than the amount shown in the accounts or bills.
Section 52 in The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 52 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 November, 1970
9. We are of the view that the ratio of the above decision is squarely applicable herein also. In these cases, the assessees were all along disputing the veracity and reliability of the facts culled out by the assessing authority from the books of the District Statistical Office. That is a basic fact which must be shown to exist in order to sustain the assessments under Section 17(3) or to invoke Section 19B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The basic fact aforesaid could have been established by causing the original records of the Statistical Department to be produced showing the price of the dried arecanut gathered by the department. It would have been proper and fair to ascertain as to who gathered the details regarding the price of arecanuts and in what manner, the persons or dealers from whom the prices were so gathered and the dates on which the prices were so gathered for the Statistical Department. The Price Inspectors or any one of them available could have been examined to show the nature, manner and method of enquiries conducted by them. The statutory authorities have totally ignored the above factors. On the other hand, the final fact finding authority, the Appellate Tribunal, whose duty is to enter findings of fact, has proceeded as if the information obtained by the Additional Sales Tax Officer-Ill, 4th Circle, Thrissur, as disclosed in his enquiry report dated 2nd August, 1985, is decisive of the question. In the light of the stout dental by the assessees about the veracity and acceptability of the details so gathered from the Statistical Department, the Appellate Tribunal acted illegally and in an unreasonable manner in not caring to find out the truth and reliability of the materials which mostly formed the basis, for the assessing authority to resort to best judgment assessments or for invoking Section 19B of the Act. The Tribunal failed to pose the real question that arose for consideration.