9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sheet and what was furnished to the Team of Enforcement Wing. Once a party before a quasi judicial Tribunal, voluntarily invites the attention of the Tribunal to a document, the Tribunal is entitled to come to its own conclusion from what was produced. It is not part of the principles of natural justice to expect the Tribunal to confront the person producing the document with what is found by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is not any violation of principles of natural justice. For the grievance relating to perversity of findings, it is necessary to take note of the 3 grounds with which the petitioner has gone before the Tribunal seeking rectification. If we compare the grounds of attack in these revision petitions with the paragraphs f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Special Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 3. On 15.09.1999, there was an inspection of the factory premises of the revision petitioner, by the officials of the Enforcement Wing of the Commercial Taxes Department of the State of Tamil Nadu. In the course of inspection, the Enforcement Wing sought the particulars relating to (1) sales turn over of aluminium alloy castings and finished goods; (2) Opening stock and closing stock and (3) consumption of raw materials, relating to the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. Unfortunately, the employees of the revision petitioner furnished three different figures, on three different dates, relating to the aforesaid four assessment years. The details so furnished by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge(Consum ption Vs. Prodn) 30 | 50 | 0 111 | 123 | 154 52 | 55 | 113 28 | 35 | 36 4. On the basis of the figures so furnished, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that there was suppression of turn over. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notices, proposing to revise the assessment and to re-determine the total and taxable turn over, for four assessment years viz., 1994-95 to 1997-98. After giving an opportunity to the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed four different orders of revised assessment, three of which were on 28.03.2002 and one on 04.04.2002. Penalty was also imposed upon the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the revised orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 9. The main grievance of the revision petitioner/assessee is that though the officials of the assessee company furnished three different figures on three different dates, the reasons for the difference were well explained by the officials. However, after taking note of the figures furnished on the last date 14.09.2000, the assessing officer chose to arrive at the presumption of suppression of turn over, based upon the production figure furnished on the first date 23.03.2000. The contention of the revision petitioner/assessee is that once the Assessing Officer chooses to go by the figures furnished on the last date 14.09.2000, it is not open to him to take the figures relating to production alone, from what was furnished on 23.03.2000. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... what was produced. It is not part of the principles of natural justice to expect the Tribunal to confront the person producing the document with what is found by the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not impressed with the first contention. 12. Insofar as the second grievance relating to the perversity of findings is concerned, it is necessary to take note of the grounds with which the petitioner has gone before the Tribunal seeking rectification. A perusal of the petitions for rectification would show that the rectification is sought by the petitioner on three issues. These three issues are indicated in paragraphs 5(a), 5(b), and 5(c). The inference that the revision petitioner wants the Tribunal to make out of those three points, are indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision petitions with the paragraphs from the rectification petitions, which we have extracted above, it could be seen that primarily the attack on perversity of finding, revolves around these facts. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the revision petitioner should in all fairness pursue the rectification petitions and get verdict on the same. 15. It is contended by Mr.K.A.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Tribunal may either reject the rectification petitions or sustain the same findings even after rectifying the mistakes. 16. Assuming that the Tribunal rejects the petitions for rectification, it is not as though the petitioner is without a remedy. Assuming that the Tribunal allows the rect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
