Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (9) TMI 614

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was set aside. The respondent--M/s. Arihant Enterprises is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, M.J. Market Circle, Abids Division, Hyderabad. The respondent was carrying on business in plywood and decorative laminates. During the assessment year 2003-04, the jurisdictional Commercial Tax Officer noticed that the turnovers, reported by the respondent-dealer in its returns, are too low and are not matching with the huge quantities of goods the dealer was purchasing and selling, therefore, it was suspected that the dealer was suppressing the values of its purchases and sales by under-invoicing and the values recorded by the dealer in the purchase/sales invoices .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, there was difference of opinion between the Chairman of the Tribunal and the Departmental Member, and the matter was referred to the third Member who agreed with the view of the Chairman, and accordingly, as per the majority view, the appeal was allowed setting aside the acquisition proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the State has come up with the present revision. At the time of hearing, the learned Special Standing Counsel contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the State. It was contended that the assessing officer and the competent authority to initiate proceedings under section 28A of the Act, had gathered information and brought on record sufficient mat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r that the price of such goods varies from the product of each company, which manufactures. In fact, the department did not have the price either with reference to the goods of the respondentdealer nor the authority had acquired information as to the prices of the respective varieties of goods. When the authority failed to ascertain the sale value of similar goods by any other dealer in the market, it is impossible for the authority to come to the conclusion that there is either undervaluation or over valuation of any of the goods purchased/sold. The learned counsel also contended that the department had estimated the value of the stock at the premises of the respondent-dealer at Rs. 2,87,32,683.90, but the very same Commercial Tax Officer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n up for admission, both parties represented that the revision may be disposed of at the admission stage itself. The issue that falls for consideration in this revision is whether there are any grounds warranting interference with the order of the Tribunal. The Commercial Tax Officer purported to be exercising the powers under section 28A of the Act, initiated acquisition proceedings on the ground that the respondent-dealer was indulging in under-invoicing of the purchases as well as sales which had facilitated the evasion or reduction of the tax payable by the respondent-dealer. According to the authority, it had received credible information that the respondent-dealer was indulging in under invoicing, therefore, gathered certain inform .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he quotations, and the offer of the respondent-dealer for the sale of the entire stock at Rs. 53,22,847.06 as against the departmental estimated fair market price at Rs. 2,87,32,683.90 and the quotations from two dealers received by the department for Rs. 71.82 lakhs and Rs. 73.03 lakhs, but the department failed to accept the said offer on the premise that the dealer was not prepared to give a detailed break up of purchase value of the stock, and came to the conclusion that the competent authority, in fact, did not conduct proper inspection of the goods that were available with the dealer. The Tribunal, therefore, recorded a finding as to the failure of the authority to ascertain fair market price, which reads: "We are of the consid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates