AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Rajendra Babu, J.-Revisional proceedings were initiated for the assessment year 1991-92 by the Revisional Authority, on the ground that the total value of goods available for sale is a sum of Rs. 9,82,556-60 ps. While the assessee had declared a total sale of Rs. 1,57,148/- only but Assessing Authority did not bring to tax a sum of Rs. 8,25,408.40 ps. In reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioner has stated that the labour charges of Rs. 1,27,492-56 ps. has not been taken into consideration. For job work of printing charges the processing, posting, binding is also involved. The customer would be supplying paper which is the main raw material and the trading account will disclose that the paper purchased is only to the extent of Rs. 1,25,705/- while the sale was Rs. 1,57,148/- and the labour charges for job printing collected was Rs. 1,27,492.50 ps. The Revisional Authority did not accept this claim on the ground that no material was made available to prove to what extent the amount incurred is towards labour and for printing and binding. Objections were therefore rejected. The Revisional Authority was of the view of the turnover involved 60% is towards labour work and 40% towards sales and the trading account statement available in the assessment records show the purchase at Rs. 3,42,926/- and not Rs. 1,25,705/-. Therefore the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected and concluded the assessment as indicated in the aforesaid order.
When the matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal, the only contention put before the Tribunal was that the turnover in question has escaped assessment therefore could not be the subject-matter of revision. But it could have been reassessed only under Section 12-A of the Act and in this context relied upon the decision of this Court in Bidar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Hallikhed v State of Karnataka, (1985)58 STC 65 (Kar.). The Tribunal stated that even applying the principles stated therein the revision is proper inasmuch as the Assessing Authority had not verified the books of accounts correctly in determining the taxable turnover and therefore the Revisional Authority could have interfered in such a matter. In the circumstances, when the Assessing Authority had applied its mind to the relevant turnover not brought to tax it is certainly open to the Revisional Authority to revise the same. In the circumstances we think there is justification for the Revisional Authority to interfere with the same. Therefore the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be proper.
Even on merits there is no case made out on behalf of the petitioner, because the Revisional Authority brought to tax only part of the turnover in the trading account and the balance is retained as labour charges. Therefore depending upon the nature of the trade carried on and the extent of expenses incurred which is in the knowledge of the Assessing Authority if conclusion has been reached, we do not think this Court can substitute its view to that of the authorities concerned. Thus we find no merit in this petition. The petition is dismissed.