9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oks of accounts would amount to best judgment assessment so as to attract penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the Act? (ii) Whether the decision of the honourable Supreme Court reported in [1971] 28 STC 700 (SC) in the case of State of Madras v. S. G. Jayaraj Nadar & Sons and the decision of this court reported in [2002] 125 STC 505 (Mad) in the case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), is applicable to the present case as the turnover has been estimated based on the figures available in the books of accounts? (iii) Whether the addition of freight charges and gross profit added to the turnover as per books made in the original assessment would amount to revision of assessment under section 16 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings for the levy of penalty and that the penalty was levied under section 12(3) instead of considering the same as per section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, on merits, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and cancelled the levy of penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. In paragraph 10 of the order, the Tribunal pointed out that the inspection on July 27, 1995 revealed purchases from unregistered dealers as well as inter-State purchases. The sale value of these purchases was estimated after adding the transportation charges and the assessee could not produce the relevant documents to sustain its claim and thereby contradict the findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e levy of penalty. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. A reading of the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer dated July 23, 1997 shows that except for giving the basis for making the assessment, there is hardly any issue considered as regards the levy of penalty consequent on the reassessment proceedings. It is trite law that once the original assessment has been revised, the reassessment order effaces the effect of the first assessment. If in a reassessment proceedings, the assessing authority proceeds to impose penalty, it could only be in accordance with the provisions under section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, which reads as follows: "16. Assessment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end of the order, it merely recited the penalty levied as under section 12(3) of the Act at 100 per cent of the tax due, amounting to a sum of Rs. 21,240. Thus, without satisfying himself as to whether the turnover which was not offered for assessment was wilfully suppressed, on a mere ground that the assessment had been made on a best of judgment basis, the penalty was levied under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, even assuming that the reference under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was a wrong reference of the statutory provisions, yet, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the levy of penalty under section 16(2) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
