9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stant Commissioner remanded the matter to find out about the local or fictitious purchases. However, he deleted the penalty. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The assessee was aggrieved with regard to the order of remand passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, in the course of the hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee was not able to place before the Tribunal any evidence or arguments. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the order of remand passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 2.. The State filed an enhancement petition against the deletion of penalty of Rs. 1,20,264. The assessee relied upon the decision reported in [1977] 40 STC 466 (Mad.) (State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not appreciated the scope of section 36(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The view of the Division Bench of this Court reported in [1977] 40 STC 466 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Jakthi Veliyeetakam) requires reconsideration in view of another Division Bench judgment in [1981] 47 STC 88 (Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Panayappan Leather Industries) and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in [1982] 51 STC 381 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company). Penalty proceedings are part of assessment proceedings and as such the penalty levied under section 12(3) of the Act has to be treated as part of the assessment order and hence the Tribunal has got power of enhancement even though the penalty has been deleted totally by the Appellate Assis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. The assessee declared a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 96,82,250.68 and Rs. 51,28,245.09. For the reasons stated in his order, the assessing officer determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 1,12,72,701 and Rs. 73,44,261. He also levied penalty of Rs. 1,20,264 under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The assessing officer, in the course of the order, held that the assessee claimed substantial portion of the turnover as second sales. The alleged purchases were made from three dealers to the value of Rs. 20,04,428.38. After adding a profit margin, the second sales claimed was arrived at Rs. 22,04,871.22. According to the Revenue the abovesaid three persons did not exist during the relevant time of purchase. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
