9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Rejection of reported turnover and addition based on gross profit and stock inventory. 2. Dispute regarding assessment under section 7 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959. 3. Classification of goods for sales of revolving tilting chair unit bases. Analysis: 1. The first issue revolves around the rejection of the reported turnover by the assessing authority, leading to an addition of 10% due to alleged defects and omissions. The appellant, a partnership firm dealing in furniture materials, contested this addition. The Appellate Tribunal found that the rejection was unjustified as the appellant maintained proper accounts with day-to-day stock records, vouched purchases, and regular billing for sales. The gross profit variation was explained, and the stock inventory issue was deemed sustainable. Consequently, the addition was reduced to 5%, resulting in the disputed amount of Rs. 2,137.30 being deleted. 2. The second issue concerns the method of assessment under section 7 of the Act. The appellant had a provisional assessment under s. 7, but the assessing authority proposed to compute tax under s. 3(1) without providing reasons for the change. The appellant argued for assessment under s. 7, citing relevant rules allowing the option for composition basis. The State Representative contended that s. 7(2-A) mandated assessment under s. 3(1) due to a previous withdrawal of the s. 7 option. The Tribunal held that s. 7(2-A) applied to assesses previously under s. 7, not to those under s. 3(1) like the appellant. The provisional assessment and the appellant's filing of the AA-1 return indicated the intention for s. 7 assessment, thus allowing the appellant's eligibility for assessment under s. 7. 3. The final issue involved the classification of goods for sales of revolving tilting chair unit bases. The authorities classified these bases as furniture under Entry 128 of the First Schedule, subjecting them to tax. However, the Tribunal disagreed, determining that the chair bases were not furniture but components sold to furniture manufacturers. The bases required further manufacturing before use and were not usable as furniture themselves. Therefore, the levy of tax under Entry 128 was deemed incorrect, and the appellant succeeded on this ground. As a result, no separate tax levy on this turnover was warranted. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was to be assessed on the reported turnover under section 7 of the Act, with the disputed additions and classification issues resolved in favor of the appellant.
|
