9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation were in force on the date of purchases. The respondent had proved with records, the sufferance of tax was in anterior sales within the state. The first appellate authority, after due verification of the connected records and other related materials, allowed the claim of the assessee, as second sales of machinery and the Tribunal, upon due consideration of the facts, has concurred. Tax case revision petition is dismissed - T.C.(R).No.42 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2018 - S. Manikumar And V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Haribabu Additional Govt. Pleader (Taxes) ORDER ( Order of this Court was made by S. Manikumar, J. ) Tax Case Revision is filed to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extile machinery, he disallowed the claim of second sales of machinery at ₹ 20,77,005/-. 5. The learned first appellate authority has allowed the claim on the second sales of machinery for ₹ 20,77,005/- The Assessing Authority has held that the appellants had purchased 8 Nos. of Textile Machinery for ₹ 3,93,632/-in 1986 and 1990 but they had sold these goods for ₹ 25,10,000/-, the gross profit was abnormal, only because they had used the spare purchased within and outside the sale the value of the textile machinery has increased. In the objection to the pre-assessment notice, the appellants had held that their profit should not be assessed to tax, that they had purchased the goods locally and these goods h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared to the written down value. In view of the above, I hold that the Assessing Authority is not correct in restricting the second sales claim and assessing the differential value. The written down book value, the cost price and the sale value cannot be compared unless it is proved with records that the machinery has undergone a sea change and it has not suffered tax earlier. With the above observation, I set aside the assessment made and allow the appeal. 6. The learned Authorised Representative for the respondents would argue that the respondents during the year under consideration had effected sale of old textile machineries and the difference between the book value of the machinery and sale price have been admitted as profit on sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Commercial Taxes. 8. Against the above grounds of Appeal, the respondents would submit the following:- i. The respondents had filed the details of sales of machinery both taxable and non-taxable. They had also furnished the copies of the purchase bills to prove the sufferance of tax in the earlier sale within the State. The Assessing Authority has detailed this fact and furnished the details of purchase in his order itself in page 2 and 3. Hence it is not correct to say that the respondent had not filed the copies of the bills. The respondents had proved beyond doubt that the anterior sale had suffered tax within the State and the sales in their hands are only second sales; ii. The respondent had filed all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot applicable to the case on hand. On facts and circumstances, that the Assessing Officer refers to a case which the dealer had claimed exemption towards second sales but failed to produce necessary evidence and records for the same and also failed to prove the sufferance of tax in the anterior sale. Whereas, in the case on hand, the facts and circumstances are entirely different and distinct in which the respondents have proved with records the sufferance of tax in anterior sales within the State. The connected evidential records were produced before the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner and only fair and thorough perusal of the same, he has allowed the claim of the respondents as second sales of machinery. Therefore, considering th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal has failed to note that the dealers have claimed that they effected second purchase of machinery form Tvl. Tuticorin Spinning Mills Ltd., and Tvl.Gnanambigai Mills Ltd., as early as in 1986 and 1990 respectively, but the corresponding sales bills issued by the respective mills were not produced to prove that the very same machineries purchased were sold by them as second sales. He therefore submitted that the burden of proving the transaction lies with the dealers, as per Section 10 of the TNGST Act, 1959, which the dealers have failed to do so and hence, the assessment made in this case, is quite justifiable. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) and perused all the materials available on record. 7. Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
