IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.03.2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. BALASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA Tax Case (Revision) No.205 Of 2006 The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli 627 002. ... Petitioner -Vs.- Tvl. New Kamaliya Hotel Virudhunagar. ... Respondent Prayer: Revision before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal Chennai to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellat Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai dated 19.2.2004 passed i M.T.S.A.No.26/2003 (Appeal No.1/2002 dated 28.2.2002 on the file of th Appellate Assistant Commissioner, (CT) Virudhunagar, against TNGS No.5221209/1999-2000 dated 16.11.2001 on the file of the Deput Commercial Tax Officer I, Virudhunagar. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ayyasamy, Spl Government Pleader ----- O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA, J) This revision is filed against the order of the Sales Ta Appellate Tribunal, Madurai dated 19.2.2004 passed in M.T.S.A.No.26 o 2003, by the State raising the following question of law: "Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in approving th reappraisal of evidence made by the first appellate authorit dislodging the cogent and convincing reasons given by the assessin officer? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under: The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer by order dated 24.1.200 determined the total and taxable turn over of the assessee a Rs.14,72,570/- and Rs.Nil respectively for the year 1999-2000 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reviewed the assessment b utilising the estimation arrived at by the Enforcement Wing Official during the course of inspection conducted at the place of business o the assessee on 19.7.1999. In the above inspection, they watched sale and gathered details of sales of parcel service and at counter of th said hotel. They found that on 19.7.1999 one day sales was to an exten of Rs.6,660/- and they also recovered certain incriminating record during the course of inspection. Based on the incriminating record recovered and the observation of one day sales in the hotel, the calculated the sales in the hotel for the whole year and afte deducting the sales done as per accounts, arrived the estimation to a extent of Rs.9,41,457/- as sales in the hotel, which was the sale covered for non-inspection period during 1999-2000 and re-determine the total and taxable turn over at Rs.26,69,882/- and brought the sam as tax liability under Section 3-D of the TNGST Act. Aggrieved by tha order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistan Commissioner (CT) disputing the difference of Rs.11,97,346/- utilise for assessment under Section 3-D and penalty levied under Section 16(2 of the Act at Rs.90,897/-. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner delete the entire estimation but only sustained 20% addition to the boo turnover and brought the assessee under, below the tax liability. A the total and taxable turnover was fixed below the taxable limit, th penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was also cancelled. Aggrieve by the said order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tamil Nad Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai. The Tami Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by th Revenue and confirmed the order of the learned Appellate Assistan Commissioner. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenu submitted that the Assessing Officer had clearly established that ther was sales suppression and purchase suppression and therefore th estimation was just and reasonable and hence it was submitted that th order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, deleting the entir additions, but restricted to 20%, requires reconsideration. 4. We heard the counsel. The Assessing Officer made estimate based on the one day sales. Normally, sales may differ from auspiciou day and inauspicious day. So, taking the one day average fo estimation is not a scientific method sanctioned by law. It is only crude method which has no substance. At least in order to arrive on day sales, either the Assessing Authority or the Enforcement Win Officers should have made surveys every month taking into consideratio the normal day, auspicious day and inauspicious day. Both th https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ authorities below also found that there was no omission established b the Revenue. Mere one day sales could not be attributed to estimate th whole year without considering the festival season, rainy season an other natural calamities. It is also seen that the first Appellat Authority as well as the second Appellate Authority had considered al the relevant materials and came to the correct conclusion. Th Assessing Officer had only relied on the one day sale for makin estimation. The Tribunal is correct in holding that the Assessin Officer was wrong in estimating the additions which was solely based o one day sales. We are of the firm view that the Assessing Office cannot make estimate based on one day sales. 5. In view of the foregoing reasons, we find no error o infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and hence no question of la arises for consideration of this Court. Accordingly the tax case i dismissed. No costs. Tr/km Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Assistant Registrar, Tamilnadu Sales Tax Appellate, Tribunal, Madurai. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli 627 002. 3. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Virudhunagar. 4. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer I Virudhunagar. JRG(CO) SR/3.4.2006 TC (R) NO.205 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/