ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The respondent is a dealer in live chicken.
According to the petitioner, in relation to the assessment year 2007-08, verification of the books of account revealed certain irregularities such as failure of audited statement in Form No.13 and 13-A and non-production of delivery notes. It is also stated that illegal transportation of 240 Kgs. live chicken was detected by the Intelligence Officer. All these led to rejection of the books of accounts and consequently assessment under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, estimating the turn over by adding 10% towards gross profit, was completed.
3. The respondent filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was disposed of by reducing the O.P.(Rev).No.101 of 2014 2 addition of gross profit to 5% and also ordering that interest shall be demanded only from the date of demand notice. That was confirmed by the Tribunal. It is aggrieved by the award, the revision is filed by the Revenue.
4. The learned Government Pleader contended that the first appellate authority and the Tribunal reduced the addition of gross profit from 10% to 5% without assigning any reason. Although this contention appears to be attractive, reading of the assessment order shows that addition of 10% itself was without assigning any basis and was only on the basis of pure estimation. It is on that yardstick alone the appellate authorities have also reduced the addition from 10 % to 5%. We are not therefore inclined to find any illegality in the orders passed by the appellate authority reducing the addition to 5%.
5. The next issue raised by the learned Government Pleader against the direction of the appellate authority is that the demand for interest shall be only from the date of demand of notice. Though the counsel for the respondent sought to sustain the aforesaid direction of the appellate authority, O.P.(Rev).No.101 of 2014 3 having regard to the provisions contained in Section 31(6) of the KVAT Act, we agree with the learned Government Pleader that they are entitled to claim interest from the date on which tax fallen due. Therefore, that part of the order of the appellate authorities cannot be sustained.
In such circumstances, the Revision is disposed of restoring the assessment order demanding interest from the date on which the tax became due and confirming the order of the appellate authority reducing the addition of gross profit to 5%.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj