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 MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 S.T.Rev.No.123 of 2007 ----------------------------------------- T.A.NO.252/2005 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL.BENCH, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 20TH MARCH, 2006) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:- --------------------------------------------------------- BINI AGENCIES, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, OMANA ASOKAN, AGED 56, W/O. ASOKAN. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:- ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SALES TAX (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. -------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev.No.123 of 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 1st December, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu,C.J. A dealer, registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Act, 1963 (“Act” for short) and doing abkari business, is before us in this Sales Tax Revision, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad, in T.A.No.252 of 2005 dated 20th March, 2006. (2) The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. (3) The assessee had filed its annual returns before the assessing authority, conceding a particular total and taxable turnover. (4) The business premises of the assessee had been inspected by the Intelligence Wing of the Department. After conducting the inspection, the Intelligence Wing of the Department had noticed, that, there is not only excess stock, but also shortage in stocks. (5) The assessee had compounded the offence departmentally in lieu of prosecution proceedings. (6) The information so collected by the Intelligence Wing of the Department had been passed on to the assessing authority. (7) The assessing authority, in view of the information received by him from the Intelligence Wing of the Department, has S.T.Rev.No.123 of 2007 - 2 - thought it fit to reject the books of accounts and also the returns filed by the assessee and, thereafter, has proceeded to complete the best judgment assessment and, in that, had made certain additions towards the probable omissions and suppressions. (8) The orders so passed by the assessing authority has been modified by the first appellate authority and also by the Tribunal. (9) The assessee, in this revision petition, calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Tribunal. (10) The assessee has framed the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are as under: “a. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in sustaining ½% addition in respect of the sale of liquor purchased from Beverages Corporation and treating such additions as taxable. b. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case taking into consideration the trivial and negligible stock variation in respect of the liquor, soda, soft drinks and cooked food the Tribunal is justified in again sustaining the percentage addition after having found that there is no nexus with the suppression and the addition”. (11) This is a case of best judgment assessment. The best judgment assessment is passed relying upon the information furnished by the Intelligence Wing of the Department. It is an admitted position, that, the assessee has compounded the offence departmentally, in lieu of S.T.Rev.No.123 of 2007 - 3 - prosecution proceedings. That only means, that, the assessee had accepted the version of the Intelligence Wing of the Department, who had stated in the mahazar drawn by him, that, there is shortage and also excess stock of the liquor in the business premises of the assessee. In view of this information, in our opinion, the assessing authority was justified in rejecting the books of accounts and also in completing the best judgment assessment. The first appellate authority and also the Tribunal, being of the opinion, that, the additions made by the assessing authority is excessive, have reduced the additions made by the assessing authority towards the probable omission and suppression. (12) The findings and conclusions reached by the Tribunal is purely based on the appreciation of facts. It does not involve any question of law for our consideration and decision, under Section 41 of the Act. (13) Since, in our opinion, no question of law as such is involved in the decision made by the Tribunal, we cannot entertain a petition filed under Section 41 of the Act, for the sole reason, that, the parameters of Section 41 of the Act is now explained by this Court in several decisions, wherein it is said, that, this Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 41 of the Act, can entertain a revision petition, provided, the Tribunal has failed to decide a question of law or has S.T.Rev.No.123 of 2007 - 4 - decided a question of law erroneously or if there is a perverse finding. (14) In the above view of the matter, we do not see any reason to entertain this revision petition. Therefore, the revision petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/-