9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal went by the proposal given by the Enforcement Wing Officials and dismissed the appeal. The problem has arisen on account of the fact that there were two proceedings, which were conducted parallelly. One with regard to detention of goods, levy of compounding fee and collection of advance tax against which, the petitioner had a revisional remedy. The proposal given by the Enforcement Wing Officials was also the basis for revising the assessment by issuing the revision notice dated 15.3.2000, which culminated against the petitioner by an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated 21.11.2000. Therefore, the petitioner has to necessarily challenge the said order before the Tribunal. The allegation of evasion of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed by the first respondent dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order dated 21.11.2000 passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Salem, who confirmed the revised order of assessment dated 31.3.2000 for the year 1998-99. 3. The allegation against the appellant was that they had transported kerosene from Mangalore to Namakkal with bogus records, prepared false documents and corrected certain entries in the triplicate. Two show cause notices were issued to the petitioner both dated 16.2.1999. Parallelly, the Assessing Officer namely the second respondent issued the notice for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was cross verified with the driver when the petitioner appeared before him on 17.2.1999. Since the local tax found charged in the invoice, there is no evasion of tax in this case. When the transportation of goods in question was supported by valid documents, there was no offence and therefore, the levy of compounding fee and collection of advance tax not warranted in this case. The Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai in the case of Tvl.Colour Tex Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner (RP) and another reported in 119 STC 105 held that 'as there were proper documents at the time of check of goods at the check post, there was no case to invoke Section 46(1)(a) to levy compounding fee'. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issuing the revision notice dated 15.3.2000, which culminated against the petitioner by an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated 21.11.2000. Therefore, the petitioner has to necessarily challenge the said order before the Tribunal. 7. When the appeal was pending, the Revisional Authority, who was the appropriate Authority to examine the correctness of the allegations made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), Dharmapuri, who passed the order dated 17.2.1999, went through the records and found that the petitioner proved to show that the local tax had been charged in the invoice and that there was no evasion of tax. Thus, the allegation of evasion of tax made against the petitioner stood effaced on an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
