9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich, according to the Assessing Officer, were insufficient and therefore, the proposal made in the revision notices was confirmed. Thus, that adequate opportunity should be given to the dealer to place all the records on account of the submission made before us that all records are available with the dealer. Hence, the levy of tax as a result of verification of the check post movement details has to be redone by the Assessing Officer. Short payment of tax - for all the assessment years involved except for the assessment year 2016-16 - Stock difference for the assessment year 2016-17 - HELD THAT:- The dealer has agreed to go before the Assessing Officer by producing details - Therefore, the finding rendered in that regard by the Assessing Officer on (i) levy of tax upon verification of the check post movement details, (ii) short payment of tax and (iii) stock difference are set aside and the matters are remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized representative of the dealer. A reading of the relevant assessment orders, which contained the basis, on which, re-assessment proceedings were init ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessment year 2016-17 and (iii) 'stock difference' for the assessment year 2016-17 alone, the matters are remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to the dealer. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - Writ Appeal Nos.362 and 663 to 668 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2021 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N. MANJULA For Appellant : Mr. Arvind P. Datar, SC for Mr. Adithya Reddy For Respondent : Mr. Mohammed Shaffiq, SGP assisted by Mrs. G. Dhanamadhri, GA COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S. Sivagnanam, J) We have elaborately heard Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Aditya Reddy, learned counsel on record for the appellant and Mr. Mohammed Shaffiq, learned Special Government Pleader assisted by Mrs. G. Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate accepting notice for the respondent. 2. These appeals have been filed by the writ petitioner - dealer challenging the common order dated 27.6.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.8461, 8462, 8464, 9239, 9242, 9247 and 9248 of 2019. By th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance by the Department, as they evolved a procedure for verification by issue of internal guidelines. 8. The third issue is with regard to the check post movement where the Assessing Officer wanted to verify the transactions and called for documents relating to check post movements. This issue arises for all the assessment years involved except for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2016-17. 9. The fourth issue is with regard to short payment of tax, which arises for all the assessment years except for the assessment year 2016-17 and the final issue is with regard to stock difference, which arises only for the assessment year 2016-17. 10. As mentioned above, the 'mismatch' issue is with regard to cross verification of the buyers' and the sellers' returns as per the web report and verification of the purchase details from other dealers' Annexure II and the purchase details from the petitioner-dealer's Annexure I has been kept in abeyance by the Department on account of verification, which is being done. 11. So far as the issue pertaining to the check post movement details is concerned, we find from the assessment orders that the dealer prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment order dated 19.2.2019 : Local purchases at 5% Local purchases at : ₹ 40,19,149.00 14.5% : ₹ 63,31,605.00 Exempted purchases : ₹ 1,13,11,790.00 CST purchases : ₹ 1,86,45,221.00 Stock Transfer Inward : ₹ 72,85,152.00 Total : ₹ 4,75,92,917.00 17. In the said reply, the dealer stated that they reported the above purchase turnover and the percentage of tax has also been mentioned therein. The dealer further stated as follows : You have not considered the opening stock as on 1.4.2013. Our opening stock as per balance sheet is ₹ 4,57,36,085.00, out of which, 75% of the value constitutes stock on Chennai unit amounting to ₹ 3,43,02,963.00 and amount of ₹ 88,12,889.00 being stitching and job work charges was also not considered which is under direct expenses reported in balance sheet which is to be added to purchase. Valuation of closing stock as per consolidat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the reason that the purchases reported by the dealer, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, were abnormally low. 22. It is the settled legal position that revision of assessment cannot be done on surmises and conjectures, but should have foundational facts. Though the Assessing Officer used the term 'purchase suppression', what has been levied by the Assessing Officer is essentially sales tax on ₹ 9,70,74,613/-, on which, the dealer already paid sales tax at 14.5%. Though elaborate submissions were made by the learned Special Government Pleader as to under what circumstances purchase tax can be levied under Section 12 of the Act, the said issue does not arise in the instant case on account of the fact that the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer for revision of assessment was not with a proposal to levy purchase tax. 23. The argument of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer so that he shall have a deeper probe into the matter is impermissible as the Assessing Officer cannot improve upon the case than what was originally proposed while issuing the revisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
