9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T.A.No.284 of 2005. 2. Short facts leading to the filing of the revision are that the respondent Tvl. Jagarwal Impex, Chennai - 1, were assessed on total and taxable turnover of ₹ 64,85,549/- for the assessment year 2000-01 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Based on the inspection conducted by the department on 05.09.2001, the assessment was revised assessing the turnover of ₹ 17,25,452/- being the estimate sale value by adding G.P. at 5% on the suppressed input value of ₹ 8,21,645/- with equal addition. Penalty under Section 16(2) was also levied in the revision order by the Assessing Officer. 3. Aggrieved against the revision made, the dealer preferred an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner (CT)-II, Chennai, who allowed the same vide order in A.P.No.42/04 dated 25.06.2004. Against the orders of the Appellate Commissioner (CT)-II, Chennai, the State filed an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai in STA No.284 of 2005. 4. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai, vide order dated 29.10.2011, dismissed the State appeal. 5. Tax case revision is filed agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t time of hearing of the appeal have produced purchase ledger for the year 2000-01 and it has been found even entered ₹ 4,28,980.00 at page-3, of the purchase ledger and expenses ₹ 2,772.00 totalling ₹ 4,31,752.00 and custom duty ₹ 1,28,362.00 and bank charges ₹ 515.00 totalling ₹ 1,28,877.00 which have been entered on 20.02.2001 and ₹ 18,395.00 relates to clearing and forwarding + bank charges ₹ 20,647.00 relates to charges paid to inter - model services and freight charges for ₹ 92,430.00 and other charges for ₹ 3,849.00. This entries were made on 1.3.2001, 6.1.2001 and 10.2.2001. It has been found that the appellants have found entered the purchases made from Hong Kong dealers. The Inspecting Officer have verified the records relates to 2001-02, whereas, these purchase were relates to the year 2000-01 which have been found duly accounted for. Hence the Inspecting Officer ascertain that the appellants have failed to account for these purchases made from Hong Kong was not correct since the appellants have accounted for these purchases for the year 2000-01 instead of the year 2001-02 since the purchases have been accounted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een duly accounted for. The Appellant Assistant Commissioner's order is found against the ethics of mathematics as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) had failed to appreciate that the original assessment order dated 27.11.2001, which was made under self assessment accepting the return and accounts has to be corrected by adding the purchase suppression noticed subsequent to the return and of rendered under self assessment. (i) The figure rendered in return and account shown under self assessment as purchase was at ₹ 80,59,473/- (P.55, 61 and 65 to 69 of assessment record) and that of sales under self assessment shown in the return and account which was adopted under self assessment at ₹ 64,85,549/- (P.61, 73 and 74). The year in dispute is 2000-01. Self assessment was made on 27.11.2001. (ii) After rendering of return and account under self assessment the unit was inspected on 5.9.01 and the inspection resulted unearthing of purchase suppression and its consequence sales omission at ₹ 8,62,726/- at 4% and hence equal time addition of sales omission was also made by the revenue. (iii) The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) in his or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement was filed before May 2001, the position would have been different and only in such circumstances, the assumption of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) can be accepted. The purchase statement was prepared only after inspection dated 5.9.01, the figures admitted before the inspecting official was subsequently cooked up as a make belief statement and the self assessment was got made only after 5.9.01 i.e. on 27.11.01. Thus the contention of the appellant and Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) is not acceptable. Thus the Revenue prayed to set aside the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)'s order and restore the Assessing Officer's order and render justice. The respondent side filed written arguments and orally argued that in fact the inspection was on 5.9.2001, which falls under subsequent assessment year. It is well known fact that at the time of inspection, the officials had verified the books of accounts relating to the assessment year 2001-2002 alone and it is evident from the inspection report, wherein the details of books signed and initiated by them is being mentioned. It is obvious that the import effected in the year 2000-2001 would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnover is based on the turnover available in the books of accounts. In such condition it will not be termed as willful suppression of turnover by the dealer. So he prayed to dismiss the STA. Heard both. Records perused. The issue to be decided in the appeal is (i) Whether the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is sustainable or not ? It is an admitted fact that Tvl.Jagarwal Impex dealers in toys and electronic toys at No.1, Kasi Chetty Street, Chennai -1, were finally assessed on a total and taxable turnover of ₹ 64,85,549/- ₹ 64,85,549/- respectively under the self assessment scheme under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for 2000-2001 but on inspection by the Enforcement Wing Official on 5.9.2001, they found out D7 slips and come to the conclusion that there was a suppression of ₹ 8,21,645/- and also add equal time addition and then determined the estimated suppression of ₹ 17,25,452/- and levied tax at 4% and also levied penalty. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal. On perusal of the assessment file at page 114 of the check notes in column No.13, it is found on the selling source of purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
