9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Rs. 1,95,782 and Rs. 63,904 respectively for the year 1982-83. On May 11, 1987, based on the recovery of certain slips during inspection on July 6, 1983, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement-V, Erode, resorted to revision under section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Relying on slip No. 3, the total purchase suppression was arrived at Rs. 5,91,425 for the period from March 2, 1983 to March 31, 1983. Adding 10 per cent gross profit, the actual sales suppression was arrived at Rs. 6,50,568. Adding three times for probable omission, the escaped turnover was fixed at Rs. 26,02,272. While referring to the objection, the assessing authority observed that the assessee has not come with proof to show that the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department to prove that there was a definite suppression in the matter. Though the Appellate Tribunal observed that the actual suppression arrived at by the assessing authority and confirmed by the first appellate authority has to be deleted and the question of penalty also does not arise, it was further observed that out of the actual suppression of Rs. 6,50,568, after deducting the turnover determined originally at Rs. 5,81,472, the balance of Rs. 69,096 could be treated as suppression for the year 1982-83. Accordingly, the Appellate Tribunal refixed the suppression at Rs. 69,096 and also imposed a penalty of 50 per cent of tax due on the suppression refixed, namely, Rs. 69,096. Hence, the present revision. 5.. Mr. R. Mahadevan, lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d his business from February 15, 1983 itself. Thus, the actual suppression, as arrived at to the extent of Rs. 6,50,568, was approved by the Appellate Tribunal ultimately, though the Appellate Tribunal observed that they felt that no actual suppression could be arrived at having regard to the facts of the case. The ultimate fact which remains is that the actual suppression was approved to the extent of Rs. 6,50,568, but the Appellate Tribunal chose to deduct the turnover originally determined at Rs. 5,81,472 from the actual suppression determined under section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the assessment year 1982-83. 8.. The point for consideration is whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in giving deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Division Bench referred to section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and observed as follows: "A mere glance at section 16(1)(a) shows that it empowers an assessing authority subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), at any time within a period of five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, to determine to the best of its judgment the turnover which had escaped assessment and assess the tax payable on 'such' turnover after making such enquiry as may be considered necessary and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such assessment. The power which the assessing authority thus exercises under section 16(1)(a) of the Act is neither the power of revision nor the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf only to assessing the escaped turnover. An order under section 16(1)(a) of the Act has to be confined, after proper enquiry within the stipulated period, and giving an opportunity to the dealer to show cause, to an assessment of the escaped turnover only. An assessment which had been completed in proceedings under section 12 of the Act is not reopened or revised in the proceedings relating to assessment of escaped turnover under section 16(1)(a) of the Act." 9.. The Madras High Court has approved the observations of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. C.M. Tiles reported in [1976] 38 STC 440, wherein, the High Court made the following observations: ".............This Court has held in that decision that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l assessment from out of the escaped turnover assessed under section 16 of the Act, is totally unwarranted. Once a conclusion is reached, it is not relevant whether the set-off to be granted is Rs. 5,81,472, as has been done by the Appellate Tribunal or Rs. 63,903.70, as stated in the grounds of revision. The approach of the Appellate Tribunal to grant set-off from actual suppression of Rs. 6,50,568 sustained by the Appellate Tribunal, is totally erroneous in law and therefore, the relief granted on a turnover of Rs. 5,81,472 is set aside. Apparently, we find that there is no case for further addition over and above the actual suppression of Rs. 6,50,568. In fine, the actual suppression is fixed at Rs. 6,50,568 as against Rs. 69,096 determi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
