Page 157 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

2020 ] IN RE : OMSAI PROFESSIONAL DETECTIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD. 371
stant case also, the A.A has not brought on record any evidence of
such kind. That means, without any incriminating material to estab-
lish the assumed suppressions of taxable supply of services, best
judgment orders cannot be upheld as de jure.
It is further reasonable here to note that the main principle ema-
nates from the decisions on the best judgment assessment is that
any levy basing on mere presumptions, but not substantiated by
any sort of incriminating material to establish the suppression in-
dubitably, shall be seen as bad in law and in violation to the princi-
ples of natural justice.
Any best judgment assessment must be supplemented by reason,
because reason is the heart beat of any conclusion and fetches clarity
in conclusion of any order, as such, without the reason best judg-
ment orders becomes lifeless and amounts to denial of fundamental
justice. The reason/evidence would act as live link between the
mind of assessing authority and the resultant conclusion arrived at.
In the impugned orders, it is an apparent failure on the part of the
A.A that he has not recorded any reason or basis in estimating the
quantum of the outward taxable supplies. It is also clear from the
findings that the A.A has not discussed anything about the appel-
lant’s contentions and not recorded any reasons. In this connection,
it needs to be emphasized that every litigant, who approaches the
A.A for relief is entitled to know the reason for acceptance or rejec-
tion of his prayer, particularly when either of the parties to the list
has a right of further appeal. Unless the litigant is made aware of
the reasons which weighed with the A.A in denying him the relief
prayed for, the remedy of appeal will not be meaningful. It is that
reasoning, which can be subjected to examination at the higher fo-
rums.
The appellant also averred before me that except presuming sales
suppression basing on routine wild guess work, the A.A has never
attempted to verify transactions/payments of anyone connected
with the determined sales suppressions in issue, the same clearly
points towards a conclusion that the estimates of sales suppression
are pure guess work, and not based on any authenti-
cate/dependable evidence and/details.
The appellant has submitted a detailed statement and copies of the
returns in Form GSTR-1 filed by it and asserted that the turnovers
and taxes shown in this statement are actually scored outward sup-
plies. Since, the returns in Form GSTR-1 filed by it are found to be
not rejectable due to lack of any additional contra evidence, hence
the turnover & tax liability disclosed through these GSTR-1 returns,
is to be confirmed as the real turnovers of the appellant.
It is also an anomaly in the A.A’s determination, wherein the A.A
stated that he has added 50% to the declared turnover of the appel-
lant. But, the thorough examination of the said GSTR-1 returns of
the appellant, it is revealed that the A.A’s computations on this as-
pect even after adding 50% are observed to be erroneous.

GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  157