9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (8) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sales during he respective years. Asst. yr. . Turnover Reported 1970-71 Total 32,51,047.11 . Taxable 23,500.54 1971-72 Total 37,25,155.61 . Taxable 7,856.75 1972-73 Total 26,66,090.01 . Taxable 253.20 1973-74 Total 31,27,214.88 . Taxable 68.00 The various issues arising in these appeals are separately discussed. 3. For asst. yr. 1970-71 sales of two motor cars are involved. MSQ 5665 was purchased from Tvl. Sundaram Motors on 15th July, 1968. It is stated that even a letter from the seller was produced in respect of the same. It is further sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -72. These were claimed as second sales on the plea that these were locally acquired. But as pointed out by the authorities below it should have been very easy for the appellant to show that these were second sales. All the same the appellant had merely asserted that these are sales without showing any correlation between the goods locally purchased and those sold. In fact, it appears that even purchase and sale bills were not made available. Even before us no evidence is produced. Under the circumstances the appeals on this point have to fail. 5. The next ground relates to levy of tax on sales of M.S. Rounds to the extent of Rs. 10,60,956.68 for asst. yr. 1970-71, Rs. 17,37,456.65 for 1971-72, Rs. 13,08,689.32 for 1972-73 and Rs. 8,25,68 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cement petitions which contain a common claim. The appellant had purchased scrap locally and converted the same to MS rods, etc. Following the decision of the Madras High Court in the appellant s own case reported in Pyare Lal Malhotra s case, 26 STC 416 to local sales made out of locally purchased scrap to the following extent are stated to have been exempted. Assessment Year Amount 1970-71 22,04,699.97 1971-72 9,12,237.74 1972-73 18,60,928.55 1973-74 23,94,173.39 Since the decision on the basis of which exemptions have been granted had been reversed by the Supreme Court in 33 STC 319, the learned State Representative has come up with enhancement petitions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e subject-matter before the AAC even in his manner. In this view, the power of enhancement for the Tribunal is even more limited than that of the AAC. It is because the entire assessment is before the AAC while only the appellate order is before this Tribunal. Where the tax payer claimed relied which he had not urged before assessing authority or in first appeal, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the same as held by the Madras High Court is R.M. Nilya Thevar vs. State of Madras, 24 STC 520. Hence it stands to reason that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal cannot be more elastic while dealing with State s claim for enhancement. This limited view of the Tribunal s jurisdiction is the view generally accepted under the analogous provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
