9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 134 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRe-fixation of taxable turnover Non existant concern - Suppression of amount Held That - The Tribunal was of the view that it was not correct on the part of the assessee to contend that it had handed over the goods worth Rs.10 lakhs in the year 1996 for safe custody - Assessee filed return showing the taxable turnover as NIL - The assessee had not offered any explanation on this turnover as to whether the same had gone into export stream or otherwise - The only contention taken by the assessee was that they were entrusted the goods with Balaji Garments, which was later on returned to the assessee on 26.4.97 after the date of inspection and they were in poor condition - The assessee could not show the receipt of the goods and the manner in which it had dealt with the goods - There is every justification for including this turnover for the purpose of assessment. Levy of penalty Held that - the Assessing Officer gives no reason for imposition of penalty indicating any intention on the part of the assessee to suppress the fact - the explanation offered by the assessee was disbelieved and rejected, per se would not lead to imposition of penalty - the fact that there are also defects in the enquiry done by the Revenue, thus, it is not a fit case where penalty should be imposed relying upon APPOLLO SALINE PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (SAC) AND OTHERS 2001 (10) TMI 1100 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - No levy of penalty is warranted on the assessment made solely relying on the turnover available in the books of accounts penalty could not be levied Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Refixing taxable turnover for Tvl. Anusha Leather Pvt. Ltd. 2. Setting aside suppression for Tvl. Bajaj Garments Limited. 3. Restoration of penalty as levied by the assessing officer. Issue 1: Refixing taxable turnover for Tvl. Anusha Leather Pvt. Ltd. The case involved an assessment year of 1996-97 where the Tribunal refixed the taxable turnover for Tvl. Anusha Leather Pvt. Ltd. at Rs.5 lakhs, as the concern was proven to be non-existent. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner noted discrepancies in the assessment and the Tribunal upheld the assessment of Rs.10 lakhs at the assessee's hands. The Tribunal found that Anusha Leathers was closed in 1994, and the goods worth Rs.10 lakhs could not have been handed over to a non-existent entity. The Tribunal decided to fix the taxable turnover at Rs.5 lakhs based on the available evidence. Issue 2: Setting aside suppression for Tvl. Bajaj Garments Limited Regarding the suppression found for Tvl. Bajaj Garments Limited, the Assessing Officer disputed the turnover of Rs.25,08,000 worth of leather garments received by Balaji Garments, citing discrepancies in the delivery process. However, the Tribunal found sufficient evidence, including delivery challans and inward register entries, to substantiate the assessee's case. The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's case and confirmed the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, rejecting the Revenue's appeal on this matter. Issue 3: Restoration of penalty as levied by the assessing officer The Tribunal remanded the penalty issue back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after granting relief to the assessee. The Revenue appealed against this decision. The Tribunal found that the assessment at the hands of the assessee for the turnover related to Anusha Exports was correct due to the non-existence of the said concern. The Tribunal restricted the turnover to Rs.5 lakhs for both 1995-96 and 1996-97 based on the lack of proof of taxable sales in the previous year. However, the Tribunal's decision to distribute the turnover between the two years was overturned by the Court, accepting the Revenue's plea and setting aside the Tribunal's order. In conclusion, the Court allowed the Tax Case (Revision) by setting aside the Tribunal's order, primarily due to discrepancies in the assessment and lack of evidence supporting the turnover distribution between the years. No costs were awarded in this decision.
|
