IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 ST.Rev..No. 48 of 2008 ------------------------------- TA.669/2004 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ASSESSEE/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.DAVIS, HOTEL VICTORY INTERNATIONAL, KUNNAMKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI, SRI.M.RAJ MOHAN, SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM, SRI.FRANKUR D.JAYAN & SRI.SHANMUGHAM D. JAYAN RESPONDENT/REVENUE/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------------------- S.T.REV. NO. 48 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th March, 2008 ORDER K.M. JOSEPH, J. Petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (for short `the Act'). Pursuant to an inspection conducted on 13.3.2001 variations were noticed in respect of liquor and soft drinks. On the basis of the same, the assessing authority made an addition to the turnover in respect of liquor and estimated the turnover at Rs.3,39,53,942.50 as against Rs.3,16,41,655.24 conceded by the petitioner. In respect of liquor the variation noticed on inspection for one day was at Rs.9,249/= and in respect of soft drinks at Rs.4,639/=. Likewise, corresponding addition was made in respect of cooked food. In arriving at the sales tax turnover of liquor as mentioned above, fifty per cent of the gross profit was also included and as regards soft drinks 180% of conceded turnover was added. 2. The first appellate authority, on Appeal filed by the petitioner, reduced the estimation of first sale of liquor from Rs.2 Lakhs to Rs.1,50,000/=. Further, as regards the sale of cooked food, it was found that the purchase of consumables along with direct expense was at Rs.12,27,748.11 and the return conceded was only Rs.12,06,707/= which would show the net result as a loss. Considering the norms in the sales turnover of cooked food, the estimation of turnover of cooked food at Rs.16,96,134/= was found to be reasonable. As regards the sales of empty bottles, the amount was reduced from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.1,50,000/=. In further Appeal before the Tribunal, the contention raised by the appellant/petitioner was that the estimation done was arbitrary and there was no reason to project the small variation found on a STRV. 48/08 2 particular day to the entire financial year, that the gross profit estimated at 50% had no basis. The Tribunal found that the gross profit revealed on analysis made by the assessing authority and also shown in the returns of similar dealer was 100% and hence 50% gross profit estimated for sale of liquor cannot be faulted. It was in such circumstances that the Tribunal found that the addition of 50% to gross profit on sales of liquor was beyond reproach. It was further found that there was no basis for the loss shown in the restaurant section and that there was suppression of actual sale of cooked food. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that an inspection was conducted only on 13.3.2001 and the variations noticed were very small and on the basis of the said small variations, huge additions made in respect of liquor as also soft drinks are unjustifiable. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader Shri Muhammed Rafiq that this is a case where the petitioner has compounded the offence on the basis of the inspection conducted. It is clear that there were variations. Variations were detected in this case on 13.3.2001. We cannot fault the assessing authority or the appellate authority or the tribunal for proceeding on the basis that the suppression and irregularities which were noted on 13.3.2001 could not be part of a pattern for the whole year. It is not as if that there is no material. There was indeed material in the form of figures available in respect of another dealer in the same area. At any rate, we think that it is essentially a question of fact and it could not be possible to contend that the conclusions arrived at by the authorities are perverse to warrant interference under Section 41 of the Act. STRV. 48/08 3 Accordingly, the questions of law are found against the petitioner and the ST. Rev. is dismissed. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, kbk. JUDGE