2007 (8) TMI 673 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Suo motu revisional powers under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - writ appeal against the order of the learned single judge rejecting the writ petition filed to quash the order of the Joint Commissioner (CT) passed in exercise of the suo motu revisional powers Held that - Do not find any justification to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant. A reading of the order dismissing the writ petition shows that the learned single judge had rightly pointed out that the partner had suffered the accident long after the issuance of the notice for production of the accounts before the assessing authority, for which there was no reply from the assessee, and even after the photocopies of the documents were seized, the assessee failed to appear before the assessing authority on the issuance of pre-assessment notice. In the circumstances, pointing out to the lack of relevancy of the materials produced in the appeal to the statement of the partner before the inspecting officials, the respondent rightly rejected the plea of the assessee. In the light of the facts found, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned single judge to allow this appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Challenge to order of Joint Commissioner under section 34 of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Assessment of suppression of turnover, disallowance of exemption claim, and penalty imposition.
3. Appeal before Appellate Assistant Commissioner and subsequent revisional proceedings.
4. Allegations of inability to produce accounts due to partner's accident.
5. Dismissal of writ petition by single judge and subsequent appeal.
6. Justification for dismissing the writ petition and confirming the order.

Issue 1:
The writ appeal challenged the order of the Joint Commissioner passed under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The appellant contended that the revisional proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner were untenable on facts and in law. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had initially granted relief to the appellant, which was viewed as prejudicial to the Revenue's interest, leading to the revisional proceedings.

Issue 2:
During the assessment year 1990-91, the appellant's branch office was inspected, resulting in the recovery of incriminating records. The assessing officer estimated the suppression of turnover, disallowed exemption claims, and imposed penalties under section 12(3) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner later refixed the taxable turnover and reduced the penalty after seeking a report from the assessing authority. The Joint Commissioner, through revisional powers, set aside the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order and restored the liability, increasing the penalty.

Issue 3:
The appellant appealed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who granted relief based on the evidence presented. However, the Joint Commissioner initiated suo motu revisional proceedings to reverse the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order, citing reasons of revenue interest. The subsequent confirmation of revision by the Joint Commissioner led to the writ petition challenging this decision.

Issue 4:
Allegations were made regarding the appellant's inability to produce accounts due to a partner's accident, which was considered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as a reasonable cause for non-appearance. The appellant argued that the accident affected the partner's ability to participate in the assessment proceedings.

Issue 5:
The writ petition was dismissed by a single judge who noted the appellant's failure to produce relevant documents despite opportunities granted. The judge highlighted discrepancies between the records filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and those verified by enforcement officials, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Issue 6:
The appellant contended that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance before the assessing authority, emphasizing the jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to call for details and reports. However, the court found no justification for the appellant's plea, upholding the single judge's decision based on the lack of relevance between the materials produced and the partner's statement before officials.

In conclusion, the writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the single judge's decision, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →