IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 S.T.Rev.No.232 of 2006 -------------------------------------- T.A.No.8/2006 OF THE KERALA SALES-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 30TH MARCH, 2006). (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.GRAINS MARBLES, KOLAPURAM, A.R. NAGAR P.O., MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2008, ALONG WITH S.T.REV.NO.233 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. -------------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev.Nos.232 of 2006 & 233 of 2006 -------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of June, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu,C.J. The best judgment assessment orders passed by the assessing authority for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 were the subject matter before the first appellate authority. The assessing authority, while passing the best judgment assessment, had relied upon the Check Post declaration and entry tax paid therein. The appellate authority while considering the appeal filed by the assessee, in fact, observes in his order as under: “Thus it is clear that there is merit in the contention of the appellant that the estimation made based on entry tax paid is not a sound one to be adopted for assessment. Moreover, the average percentage of freight will work out to 56.45% only as against 64.5% worked out by the assessing authority and the same appears to me as correct .................”. 2. The appellate authority has taken exception to the estimation made by the assessing authority. Having done so, the appellate authority ought to have adopted a rational basis for modification of the assessment order. That has not been done by the appellate authority. At this stage, we intend to observe that an estimation by best judgment may S.T.Rev.232 & 233 of 2006 - 2 - take into an element of guess work. But, it is nevertheless a judgment and, hence, must have some rational basis. Since there is no basis for the orders passed by the first appellate authority while supplementing the best judgment orders passed by the assessing authority, we cannot sustain that order. The Tribunal, in our opinion, without deciding the aforesaid issue, to say the least, has mechanically rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. Therefore, even that order passed by the appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained by us. 3. In the result, we dispose of these revision petitions and remand the matter to the assessing authority to redo the assessments for the assessment years in question in accordance with law after notice to the assessee, keeping in view the parameters available for passing the best judgment assessment. 4. In view of the orders passed in the revision petitions, all pending interlocutory applications are dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- H.L.Dattu Chief Justice Sd/- A.K.Basheer Judge vku/dk - true copy -