1992 (9) TMI 338 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Tax revision cases against common order of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89.

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras pertains to tax revision cases filed by the assessees against a common order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessees, who are dealers in jewellery, had their business premises inspected, leading to the assessing officer revising the assessments for the years 1986-87, 1987-88, and making a fresh assessment for 1988-89. The assessing officer found suppression of turnover in each year and imposed penalties accordingly. The appeals by the assessees against the assessing officer's order were dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

Upon further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals by restricting the addition towards actual suppression to an equal amount in all three years. Additionally, the penalty for the assessment year 1988-89 was partially deleted concerning stock discrepancy. The assessees then filed revisions against the Tribunal's order, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in discrediting the statement of a goldsmith, S.L. Rajaprathinithi, without valid reasons. However, the High Court found no misdirection by the Tribunal in this regard.

The Tribunal had established a nexus between the goldsmith and the assessees based on recovered records and statements, concluding that the goldsmith was working exclusively for the assessees and their sister concern. As the connection was proven, the High Court determined that the submissions of the assessees' counsel lacked merit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision petitions, upholding the Tribunal's order.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras upheld the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the tax revision cases filed by the assessees against the assessment orders for the years 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89. The Court found no error of law in the Tribunal's order and rejected the argument that the Tribunal had wrongly discredited the statement of the goldsmith. The established nexus between the goldsmith and the assessees led to the dismissal of the revision petitions.