2017 (6) TMI 1202 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Deletion of assessment - it was alleged that Tribunal did not consider all the aspects, and deleted assessment - Held that - Tribunal concluded that in the absence of the all details, it cannot be stated that the coupons were issued to the parties whenever sales were effected to them - the Tribunal held that no opportunity was granted to the respondent dealer, to explain the reasons for the difference noticed in respect of coupons found at the time of inspection - The contentions raised by the revenue are all factual and there is no question of law arising for consideration - Tax Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding assessment year 2000-2001 under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras heard a Revision by the Revenue challenging the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 16.07.2004. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the State and allowed the cross objection filed by the dealer, which led to the Revenue challenging this decision. It was noted that no question of law was raised at the time of the Tax Case, and all contentions raised by the Revenue were deemed factual. The Additional Government Pleader for the appellant argued that the dealer's prize scheme lacked proper accounting, with deficit stock found during inspection and detergents given for the scheme not being included in sales. The Tribunal was criticized for not examining this aspect and deleting the assessment without sufficient grounds.

The High Court examined the Tribunal's findings, particularly in para 7, where it was observed that no actual variation in stock was noticed, and there was a lack of evidence to support the addition of turnover. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that coupons were issued consistently with every sale, casting doubt on the justification for adding turnover. Furthermore, the absence of mention of prize coupons in sales bills raised questions about their issuance. The Tribunal concluded that without these crucial details, it could not be definitively stated that coupons were given to customers with every sale. Additionally, the respondent dealer was not given an opportunity to explain the discrepancies in coupon numbers found during inspection.

The Tribunal highlighted that the dealer's proprietor claimed to keep the coupons for customer issuance after payment verification, but they were found deficient during inspection. It was also noted that the proprietor was not granted a personal hearing to present records supporting his claim. The Tribunal made factual findings supporting its decision, emphasizing that the Revenue's contentions were factual in nature, and no legal question merited consideration. Consequently, the Tax Case Revision was dismissed by the High Court of Madras, with no costs imposed.