Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle vs Swastik Oil Industries

J.K. Ranka, J.—This instant sales tax revision petition is directed against the order dated August 20, 1999 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmeer, by which the appeal of the Revenue has been dismissed. The order pertains to the assessment year of 1994-95. The brief facts which can be noticed are that a survey was conducted on May 20, 1994 and the authorized officer of the survey team found that 472 tins of oil were found unrecorded which was valued at Rs. 2,12,400. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the assessee and thereafter dissatisfied with the explanation furnished, the assessing officer vide order dated December 6, 1994 held that the assessee was unable to prove by acceptable evidence about 472 tins of oil to the extent of Rs. 2,12,400 which have not been recorded in the books of accounts or supported by bills and vouchers and accordingly levied penalty of Rs. 60,000.

Dissatisfied with the said imposition, the matter was carried in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), before whom the books of accounts and other material were produced, however, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal by giving relief of Rs. 59,730 and sustained a penalty of Rs. 270.

The Revenue was not satisfied with the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and carried the matter in appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board who vide the impugned order upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and after analyzing the material on record came to the conclusion that only two tins were found in excess and accordingly upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this petition.

Counsel for the Revenue contended that the assessee, during the course of survey, admitted and accepted the guilt that the stock to the extent of 472 tins of oil was found unrecorded or was not supported by bills and vouchers, when there was a specific finding of assessing officer. There was no reason for the appellate authority to have reversed such finding of fact.

She further contended that when the assessee himself had admitted, then in subsequent proceedings, the material evidence ought not to have been accepted by the appellate authority, hence substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tax Board.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the Revenue and in my view, the Tax Board as well as the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the material produced on record, have by elaborate exercise has come to the conclusion that only two tins of oil with a value of Rs. 900 could be said to be unrecorded otherwise the purchases were duly recorded as per the stock register on the day of survey. In support thereof the stock register and other bills and vouchers were produced and even the appellate authority noticed that the stock register on May 20, 1994, was duly counter-signed by the authorised officer of the survey team. After analyzing the material on record, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who had analysed the matter at a greater detail after going through the books of accounts, stock register and purchase/sale vouchers came to the conclusion that the assessee was unable to prove only two tins of oil with a value of Rs. 900, Accordingly on a value of Rs. 900 penalty of Rs. 270 was sustained. The counsel for the Revenue has been unable to contradict the finding of fact recorded by the two appellate authorities.

In my view, such is a finding of fact is essentially based on the material placed before both the appellate authorities who have in unison found only excess stock to the tune of Rs. 900.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law can be said to arise. I do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Tax Board. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.