IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 T.R.C.No. 135 of 2003 ----------------------------- ORDER DATED 30.4.2001 IN TA.971/2000 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-I,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ----------------------------------------------------- M/S.METLAND, JEWS STREET, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR.MOHAMMED YAHIA. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.VINOD CHANDRAN THIS TAX REVISION CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------ T.R.C.No.135 of 2003 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 17th day of March, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu, C.J. Petitioner before us is a dealer registered both under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('KGST Act' for short) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act' for short). In this tax revision case we are concerned with the assessment year 1989-90 under the provisions of the KGST Act. 2. The assessee had filed its annual returns before the assessing authority conceding a particular total and taxable turnover. 3. During the assessment year in question the Intelligence Wing of the Department had conducted two shop inspections and had noticed certain omissions and defects in the books of accounts maintained by the dealer. 4. In view of the shop inspection reports the assessing authority has rejected the returns filed by the assessee and thereafter has proceeded to pass a best judgment assessment and while doing so has made an addition of 10% of the taxable own goods available for sale towards the omission and defects noticed at the time of shop inspections, and accordingly has added a sum of Rs.5,69,783.99 towards the probable omission noticed at the time of shop inspections. 5. In the assessment order there is some reference to the declaration forms and non supply of copies of the same to the assessee, etc. But after going through the records, we find that the assessing authority has not relied T.R.c.No.135 of 2003 2 upon the declaration forms though there is some indication with regard to that in the assessment order. 6. Here is a case where based on two shop inspection reports the assessing authority taking into consideration the probable omissions has made a just addition in a sum of Rs.5,69,783.99 when the turnover of the dealer is to the tune of Rs.45,98, 597.13. The addition made by the assessing authority is sustained by both the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. 7. Since the order of assessment is purely based on estimation, in our opinion, no question of law would arise in this revision petition for our consideration and decision in a petition filed under Section 41 of the KGST Act. In view of the above, without going into the other details of the case, this tax revision case is rejected confirming the orders passed by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE vns