M/s. Raghavendra Enterprises, Chilkunda Village, Hunsur vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore

Ashok Bhan, J.-Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). Petitioner filed his return for the assessment year 1990-91 disclosing a turnover of Rs. 2,29,148/-. The Assessing Authority rejected the declared turnover for the reasons mentioned in the assessment order and in particular for the reason that on 8-5-1990 the ACTO, Hunsur inspected business premises of petitioner and noticed that books of accounts were not maintained and produced. It was found that the books of accounts were not recorded in due course of business. After rejecting the books of accounts best judgment assessment was framed fixing the taxable turnover at Rs. 5,29,148/- and levied Rs. 31,666/- as tax. Appeal against this order was dismissed. Petitioner carried a second appeal before the Tribunal which has also been dismissed.

Tribunal recorded a finding that upon scrutiny of records it was noticed that the petitioner did not maintain and produce the acceptable books of account. 25 workmen were found working on the date of inspection. Even if their wages were taken as Rs. 25/- per day for 25 days in a month, the wages alone on this basis would come to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Rejecting the books of accounts and on reappraisal of the evidence passed the order upholding order of the First Appellate Authority.

Counsel for the petitioner sought to argue before us that certain points which had been taken in the grounds of appeal had not been gone into by the Tribunal and the case be remitted back to the Tribunal for redecision. We do not find any force in this submission. A number of pleas can be taken in the grounds of appeal but at the time of arguments, only 1 or 2 may be pressed. The Court or the Authority has to deal with only those pleas which are raised before it. In the grounds of revision in this Court, it has not been stated that the points argued by the petitioner have not been taken note of by the Tribunal. Affidavit of the Counsel who argued the case before the Tribunal has also not been filed. In the circumstances we assume whatever arguments raised before the Tribunal had been dealt with by it. Under Section 23 a revision lies on a question of law only, whereas the findings recorded by the Tribunal are of fact. We find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed.