9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27.9.2011 and therefore petitioner was not only liable to pay tax as proposed in the notice but also penalty under Section 27 (3) (c) of the TN VAT Act, 2006. In the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has not produced any documents to substantiate receipt of goods from the state of Maharashtra on the strength of Form F issued by the respondent. However, the annexures appended to various Form F give the details of the vehicle number together with the date, challan number and the number of Tin which were allegedly transported - Since this issue would require a proper examination by the respondent, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - W.P.Nos.42190,42191, 42311 & 42312 of 2016 And W.M.P.Nos.36094, 36095, 36218 & 36219 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2020 - Mr. Justice C. Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Ramani Sr. Counsel for M/s.Raveendran (in both W.Ps.) For the Respondent : M/s.G.Dhana Madhri G.A.(T) (In both W.Ps.) COMMON ORDER By this common order, both the writ petitions are being disposed. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders passed by the respondent on 30.06.2016 for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner replied to the respective notices which have culminated in the impugned orders. By the impugned orders, the respondent has confirmed the proposals in the respective notices dated 31.07.2012. Operative portion of the respective orders are identical except for the turnover and the tax net demanded:- The Objections filed by the dealers had been carefully considered and met out as follows: The dealer had admitted the fact of stopping the business activities only after the exemption limit was reduced to ₹ 5 crores from R.500 crores per year w.e.f.12.07.2011 under entry 65 of the part B of IV of schedule to the TNVAT 2006. Their total sales turnover was above ₹ 5 crores every year. If they continued the business, after the amendment date was 12.07.2011 they become liable to pay tax automatically. In order to avoid the tax liability they stopped the business activities at Coimbatore cleverly. 2. During the time of inspection, the inspecting officers pointed certain material defects which can be utilised only during the time of revision of assessment by the assessing officers alone who is competent to assess the dealer. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ler claimed exemption on the sales of refined soya oil upto ₹ 500 crores. They were expected to mention TIN of the buyer both in the sales bill and annexure II of the monthly returns. Here, genuineness of the claim of exemption by them was doubtful and suspicious. If the dealers had actually sold the refined soya oil locally they might had mentioned the buyers full and correct address with TIN of all the buyers, further the dealer did not produce any xerox copies of the sale invoice in support of claim of exemption. Some Example of sale invoice as per Annexure II of the monthly reurns. * Party Name Invoice No Date Sale Value TIN No. Sai Balaji Oil Mill 558 03.02.2011 767250 - Ramesh Traders 554 04.02.2011 717250 - Ayyappa Traders 569 05.02.2011 717500 - Harian Enterprise 57 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate sales in the absence of valid proof for movement of goods from other states of Tamil Nadu through all the Check Posts. Further, the dealer reported sales turnover of refined Soya Oil during the year 2011-12 upto July 2011 as detailed below under TNVAT 2006. * Month Sales Turnover Reported April 2011 ₹ 3,97,78,893 May 2011 ₹ 3,57,60,656 June 2011 ₹ 4,31,87,940 July 2011 ₹ 72,14,000 From August 2011 to March 2012 Rs. ---- Total ₹ 12,59,41,489 (* Table 2) From the above sales turnover reported upto July 11, it is clearly come to know that the dealer had knowingly stopped the reporting of sales turnover under TNVAT 06 after the amendment of the exemption limit on the sale of oil from ₹ 500 crores to Rs.crores per year, as per the Act No.30 of 2011 w.e.f.12.7.11. In order to avoid tax liability, the dealer stopped their clandestine transaction w. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... * Total and taxable interstate sales turnover determined treating the interstate sales not covered by 'C' Forms @ 4% ₹ 12,59,41,489.00 Tax due ₹ 50,37,659.00 Paid Rs. ------------------ Balance ₹ 50,37,659.00 (* Table 2) * Penalty Due ₹ 76,56,488.00 Tax due ₹ 50,37,659.00 Paid Rs. ------------------ Balance ₹ 75,56,488.00 (* Table 3) 10. Challenging these orders, the petitioner has filed these two writ petitions. 11. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 12. It is submitted that the petitioner was engaged in sale of refined soya oil the State of Tamil Nadu. It is the contention of the petitioner that during the period in dispute upto 12.7.2011, the dealers engaged in sale of refined oil were exempt fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned orders proceed on the assumption that after the Government of Tamil Nadu had restricted the exemption to ₹ 5 crores with effect from 12.7.2011, petitioner would have been liable to pay tax on turnover exceeding ₹ 5 crores and since the petitioner has closed its operation is plausible that indeed there was no branch transfer all along. 18. It has been assumed in the impugned order that in the absence of the details of complete addresses of the local buyer s/ purchaser of the petitioner and absence of their TIN number in the sale bills/invoice and in the absence of any receipt proof of payment for the sales effected in the State of Tamil Nadu, the claim of the petitioner in the sales tax return as local sales exempt could not be allowed and therefore the petitioner was liable to pay tax at 4% as not covered by C Form. 19. It has been further stated that there were no stocks at the time of inspection on 26.9.2011 and 27.9.2011 and therefore petitioner was not only liable to pay tax as proposed in the notice but also penalty under Section 27 (3) (c) of the TN VAT Act, 2006. 20. It is noticed that the impugned orders the respondent has disputed the claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
