9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 909X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, we have to examine as to whether the decision of the Tribunal is justified or not. The Tribunal held that so far as the levy of purchase tax under Section 12 of the TNVAT Act is concerned, the use of the word otherwise in Section 12(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act would bring the transaction under the said provision and resultantly, the value of goods purchased from unregistered dealer or from unknown sources would attract tax - However, there is a factual finding recorded by the first appellate authority holding that if purchase tax is demanded from the petitioner, it would amount to double taxation. When the petitioner responded to the revision notice by their reply dated 02.11.2015, they took a specific stand that the deemed sale value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. This tax case revision filed by the petitioner/dealer under Section 38(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the TNVAT Act ), is directed against the order in S.T.A.No.625 of 2016, dated 10.01.2019, which was filed by the respondent-State challenging the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai-Central, the first appellate authority in A.P.No.604 of 2015, dated 30.04.2016. 2.The appeal filed by the State was allowed by the impugned order. To be noted that the petitioner earlier though was served with a notice from the Tribunal, did not appear and was set ex parte on 23.03.2017 and therefore, the Tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accountant, the Assessing Officer stated that in Statement No.13, purchase from unregistered dealers is shown as ₹ 57,59,968/, but purchase tax under Section 12 was not paid. Apart from that there was one more allegation that the contract income as per P L account is ₹ 5,19,50,000/- whereas, the taxable turnover is shown as ₹ 2,07,98,700/- as per Statement No. 12 and the balance sheet shows labour charges as ₹ 1,38,44,682/- and there exists shortage of turnover. Therefore, there was a proposal to revise the deemed assessment under Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act. 7.The petitioner submitted a reply dated 02.11.2015 stating that they are paying tax on the basis of commodity wise deemed sale value, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction under the said provision and resultantly, the value of goods purchased from unregistered dealer or from unknown sources would attract tax. However, there is a factual finding recorded by the first appellate authority holding that if purchase tax is demanded from the petitioner, it would amount to double taxation. 9.As pointed out earlier, when the petitioner responded to the revision notice by their reply dated 02.11.2015, they took a specific stand that the deemed sale value is arrived taking into account the purchases made from registered and unregistered dealers plus gross profit thereon. However, the Assessing Officer did not deal with the said contention presumably because, the petitioner did not coo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... double taxation and liable to be set aside. 10.The Tribunal in the impugned order has not dealt with this issue, which revolves on the factual aspect. The first appellate authority has recorded the petitioner's submission that the deemed sale value reported in the returns filed includes the purchases from unregistered dealer was verified with reference to the Annexure-1 filed with Form-I (VAT) returns every month and the audit report in Form- WW in the assessment records and found correct. The order of the assessing authority is not clear as to whether the first appellate authority undertook a verification exercise or not whereas, the Assessing Officer revised the assessment pointing out discrepancies in Statement No.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
