9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertain stocks of goods were found in the pial of the residential premises of Sri S.K. Kuppanna Chettiar, one of the partners in the firm. When confronted with such a situation, Sri Kuppanna Chettiar for and on behalf of the petitioner-firm is said to have given a statement admitting that the said stock in the pial represented the stock-in-trade of the firm. On the strength of the said confession and as the goods were not stored at the various places as per the certificate of registration, action was initiated under section 45(2)(d) read with section 21(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and read along with rule 24 of the Rules framed thereunder. An option was given to the petitioner to compound the offence as indeed the place at whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash the order of the Board of Revenue which confirmed the imposition of a compounding fee as also the action initiated by the revenue. Mr. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that section 45(2)(d) which characterises an action of a person who wilfully acts in contravention of any of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as an offence punishable by a Presidency Magistrate or as one in which proceedings for compounding can be undertaken is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. His contention is that there might be some provisions, a contravention of which might reasonably lead to the conclusion that the delinquent is an offender, but in a case like this, where goods are stored in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule which is intricately connected with one of the provisions of the main enactment, is made for the ancillary or incidental purpose of checking evasion or avoidance of tax, then it is perfectly within the sphere of legislative competence and such a provision cannot be assailed. The decision cited by Mr. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and reported in C.P. Officer v. K.P. Abdulla Bros.[1971] 27 S.T.C. 1 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 792., virtually does not help him. The Supreme Court there observed that a taxing entry confers power upon the Legislature to legislate for matters ancillary or incidental, including provision for preventing evasion of tax. In that case, while considering the scope of the power to confiscate goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obligation on the part of the petitioner to stock his stock-intrade at notified places mentioned in the certificate of registration and if he fails to store his business assets in such notified places then a presumption, which is very reasonable, can be drawn that such storing of stock in a place other than the authorised places or godowns is for the purpose of secreting the same. The position in the instant case becomes more conspicuous because the petitioner wanted to go back from the statement which he originally gave to the revenue wherein he confessed that the goods were his stock-in-trade. But at the time of the revision he made it appear that the goods belonged to third parties and he had nothing to do with them and they were so stoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
