2009 (8) TMI 1107 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the Department has discharged burden of proof cast on it to sustain the additions is correct in law? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in partly remanding the turnover when the basis for all are one and the same is correct in law? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in sustaining the penalty imposed on the petitioner without bringing home the guilt is right in law? Held that - We confirm the order of the Tribunal in so far as it ordered for the restoration of the estimation with regard to the stock variation noticed and arrived at by the assessing authority which resulted in the determination of the taxable turnover in a sum of 8, 26, 305 and the tax levied thereon. In so far as the equal addition is concerned the Tribunal itself has sustained the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleting such equal addition. The order of remittal passed by the Tribunal for the purpose of estimation of purchase tax turnover of raw materials for the manufacture of almirahs wire chairs and tables is set aside and after deleting the equal addition as confirmed by the Tribunal the taxable turnover determined by the assessing authority in a sum of 15, 90, 125 stands modified as 8, 26, 305. The tax payable on the sum of 8, 26, 305 shall be calculated and recovered from the assessee. Appeal partly allowed.

Summary

The High Court of Madras, in a 2009 case, heard a tax case revision involving an assessee who is a dealer and manufacturer of furniture. The assessment in question was for the year 1990-91, where the turnover was initially reported at Rs. 1,865 but was later fixed at Rs. 15,90,125 after an inspection by the Enforcement Wing. The Tribunal remanded the turnover for reconsideration by the assessing authority, while also confirming the deletion of an equal addition and sustaining the penalty imposed. The court found that the Tribunal's restoration of the estimated turnover was based on detailed statistical analysis and inspection records, and that the factual findings of the assessing authority and Tribunal were well-founded. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to restore the estimated turnover and modify the taxable turnover to Rs. 8,26,305, while setting aside the remittal order for the purchase tax turnover of raw materials. The tax revision was partly allowed with no costs incurred.