2010 (3) TMI 1038 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment made by the assessing authority was under section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959? Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the statement showing consolidated turnover cannot be taken as a return prescribed? Held that - The invocation of section 12(3)(a) of the Act, is not warranted and following the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. P.S. Srinivasa Iyengar & Sons 1989 (4) TMI 317 - MADRAS HIGH COURT these revisions are allowed and the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of assessment under section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Validity of treating a statement showing consolidated turnover as a prescribed return.
3. Conflict in the assessment by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
4. Compliance with legal principles from previous judgments of the Madras High Court.
5. Compliance with legal principles from a judgment of the Supreme Court.
6. Applicability of statutory provisions regarding tax payment before finalization of assessment proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the correctness of the assessment made under section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The original authority imposed a penalty under section 12(3)(a) due to the absence of filed returns, leading to a "best judgment assessment." However, the appellate authority argued that the assessment was based on filed returns, disputing the penalty invocation.

2. The issue of treating a statement as a prescribed return was raised. The counsel for the assessee argued that the assessment, made based on their statement, should be considered equivalent to filing returns. This argument was supported by legal precedents, suggesting that there was no basis for penalty imposition.

3. The Court noted a conflict in the assessment by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. While the Tribunal estimated turnover based on available particulars in the books of account, it was argued that the assessment was not directly book-based. However, the Court found no substantial difference and concluded that the assessment was indeed based on the statement and books of account.

4. The judgment referred to previous decisions of the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court to establish legal principles governing the case. The Court emphasized that penalties should not be imposed in cases where turnover omission was not deliberate or wilful, aligning with previous judicial interpretations.

5. The Court also highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory provisions, specifically mentioning section 12(3) of the Act. The judgment emphasized that penalty imposition was unwarranted in this case, especially considering the payment of the entire tax amount before finalization of assessment proceedings.

6. Ultimately, the Court allowed the revisions filed by the assessee, answering the questions in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The decision was based on the interpretation of previous judgments and legal provisions, concluding that penalty imposition was not justified in the circumstances presented.