9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her had subsequently brought his purchases into the account and paid the tax due thereby rectifying the defects pertaining to the year 1996-97. Merely because the purchase bill was not produced at the time of inspection for the alleged stock that were found at the time of inspection, does not always mean that there is a suppression. The petitioner has also maintained a stock register, which has been signed by the Marketing Committee regarding the purchases made. The view taken by the first respondent in the Appeal, which is under challenge before this Court is not correct. 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 reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner had reported a total and taxable value of ₹ 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 premises of the petitioner's late father and found that 323 bags (40 Kgs each) of groundnuts kernel and other stocks were found, for which no purchase vouchers or bills were produced at the time of inspection and the Enforcement Wing assessed the estimated suppression as ₹ 5,31,675/- and 50% at ₹ 2,65,838/- for probable omission. Accordingly, the third respondent by proceedings dated 17.06.1998 in TNGST No.29200761/96-97 determined a total and taxable turnover of ₹ 9,11,613/- based on the best judgment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 goods is found to have been accounted for by the concerned dealer subsequent to such inspection, the assessing officer should not have assessed the same turnover again and demanded tax, thereby giving room for double taxation. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also state that subsequent to the inspection, the petitioner's father had brought the stocks found to have been deficit, into the account and properly accounted for the same, which precisely was not taken into account b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Pleader would further submit that the assessee ought to have filed his objections stating that the accounts were available with them and the purchase bill had also been available and accounted for the accounts at the time of the third respondent passing the assessment order. However, the petitioner's father had not raised any objection before the assessing officer and subsequently cannot raise such objection, when such records were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 able to produce the purchase bill. However, on record it is clear that the petitioner's father had subsequently brought his purchases into the account and paid the tax due thereby rectifying the defects pertaining to the year 1996-97. 9. On perusing the order of the first respondent, it is clear from the order that the first respondent's view that the defects that were notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
