Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (4) TMI 1640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al No.414 of 2000, in this Writ Petition. 2. The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition and as argued by the learned counsel Mrs.R.Hemalatha for the petitioner is that the petitioner's late father was carrying on a proprietorship business in the name and style of "Durai Oil Mill" dealing in groundnut pods and groundnut kernels, who was an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Perundurai in TNGST No.2920761. During the assessment year 1996-97, the father of the petitioner had reported a total and taxable value of Rs. 1,14,000/- by way of returns in Form-A1. It was further stated by the learned counsel that the Enforcement Wing Officers on 14.02.1997 had inspected the premi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er in Appeal No.414 of 2000 dated 16.11.2006, which is the order impugned herein. The first respondent had set aside the order passed by the second respondent by allowing the Appeal filed by the State Department. Aggrieved by the first respondent's order sustaining the order of the third respondent, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition before this Court challenging the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent had set aside the well considered order of the second respondent, which is perse illegal on the fact that the first respondent failed to appreciate that whenever particular suppressed turnover deducted at the time of inspection of the place of business or check of movement of go .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Rs. 1,25,510/-. Against the Appeal orders, department filed State Appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore and the said State Appeal was allowed on merits after verification of the records and restored the original order of the Assessing Authority in CTSA No.414 of 2000 dated 16.11.2006 and Assessing Authority given effect of the Tribunal order, demanded balance of tax of Rs. 22,901/- and penalty of Rs. 47,852/- and initiated recovery proceedings under R.R. Act by issue of Form-1 notice to the petitioner to collect the arrears. It is against the Tribunal order and also against the collection of arrears under R.R. Act, the present Writ Petition have been filed. 5. The learned Additional Government Ple .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot at all the question of botheration by the Market Committee and they are only concerned with the collection of cess for the purchases made from them and he would also reiterate that the said stock book produced before the inspection authorities is only a fabricated one. 7. Heard both the counsels and perused the materials on record. 8. On perusal of the records and upon hearing the arguments by both the parties, it is clear that during the assessment year 1996-97, the petitioner's father was running a proprietary concern, who had purchased 323 bags of groundnut kernels from a registered dealer and groundnuts purchased, for which the tax has been paid. However it is on the date of the inspection, the petitioner's father was not a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l at the time of inspection need not always be suppression, that too, when such stocks were found in the purchase register and for which, tax was paid subsequently. 10. As such, the order passed by the second respondent is well found and on perusing the order passed by the first respondent, the first respondent has not given any valid reason for interfering with the orders passed by the second respondent other than stating that at the time of inspection, there was no purchase bill produced by the assessee and the subsequent documents produced are fabricated. Merely on this ground, the first respondent has set aside the order passed by the second respondent, which is not correct. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates