9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken as a return prescribed? 3. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has held in one place that the turnover was estimated on best judgment by the assessing officer on the basis of particulars available in the books of account, in another place it is held that the turnover was not the estimate directly based on the books of account. Therefore, the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is conflict. 4. The order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was contrary to the principles stated by the honourable Madras High Court reported in [1993] 89 STC 349 (State of Tamil Nadu v. P.S. Srinivasa Iyengar Sons) and the judgment of the honourable Madras High Court in W. P. No. 10201 of 2000 dated October 1, 2001 (Rajarajeswari Finance, Sivakasi v. Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore, the assessee is before us. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on [1993] 89 STC 349 (Mad) (State of Tamil Nadu v. P. S. Srinivasa Iyengar and Sons) and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court dated October 1, 2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 10201 of 2000 (Rajarajeswari Finance, Sivakasi v. State of Tamil Nadu) relying on [1971] 28 STC 700 (SC) (State of Madras v. S. G. Jayaraj Nadar & Sons). Learned counsel pointed out that even in the order of the assessing officer, the following words are found: "it was found from AI returns filed, they have reported their total and taxable turnover for 1996-97 and 1997-98". The learned counsel submitted that if the assessment has been made on the basis of their statement, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 12(3) is not attracted in the levy of penalty and it is unwarranted. The impugned order of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and the levy of penalty on the assessee is set aside. The writ petition is allowed." In State of Tamil Nadu v. P.S. Srinivasa Iyengar & Sons [1993] 89 STC 349 (Mad), it was held as follows (pages 349-350 in 89 STC): "No man is penalised for a mistake, which he never intended to commit, but had happened. The case on hand is one such. Having regard to the finding of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal: 'The turnover in question, viz., Rs. 6,77,719 was shown in the accounts and also furnished to the assessing authority by various statements before initiating the final assessment proceedings. The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
