9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eason to sustain the impugned order - This writ petition is allowed. - W.P. No.7665 of 2006 And W.P.M.P. No.8428 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2022 - Honourable Mr.Justice S.Vaidyanathan And Honourable Mr.Justice C.Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mrs.Lakshmi Sriram, for M/s.T.Ramesh Kutty For the Respondents : T.N.L.Kaushik, Addl. Govt. Pleader (Taxes) ORDER We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent/Joint Commissioner (CT)-III, Chennai, pursuant to a notice issued under Section 34 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purchase and conversions were found accounted as gisted below: i) First column refers to the source of purchase ii) Second column refers to the page No. of the D7 records iii) Third column refers to the quantity iv) Fourth column refers to the name of the commodity and the v) Last column refers to the page of the day book or chittai with date The analytical study of the table given below suggests that all the entries found in the student note book recovered under D7 slip is found accounted for in the regular day book which was produced before the inspecting officials on 13.10.93. On 13.10.93, the appellants have not produced any stock account. Therefore, the entries in the stock account as checked by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agaram 15 73-16 Orid 100 Chippam 81/11-10-93 (after inspection) Sacklight 17 71-17 Orid 90 Chippam 17/14-5-93 Orid 18 38-60 33-74 Orid 94 Chippam 61/5-8-93 (after inspection) Emari 19 33-84 Toor 180 Chippam 34/4-6-93 Thuvarai 21 48-05 Toor 180 Chippam 35/5-6-93 Emari 23 31-92 Toor 41 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Penalty is refixed at 50% i.e. Rs.139/- 3. The order was sought to be revised under Section 34 of the Act by the first respondent, by issuing a notice dated 10.02.1998. By the impugned order, the order of the Appellate Commissioner was revised by holding that the petitioner had subsequently accounted the transactions and modified the accounts and therefore, there was a case for imposing penalty and also restoring the order of the original authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras-1 vs. Tvl.Gomraj Metal Wares, Madras rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing, if any, noticed. It is only for such defects noticed and on weighing the nature and gravity of the defects, the first Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal thought fit to hold that an overall addition of 10 per cent to the turnover as disclosed in the books would suffice the ends of justice in this case. In view of the above, we cannot come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has committed any patent error of law or could be said to be guilty of perversity of approach in substituting an overall addition of 10 percent to the books turnover in lieu of the formula adopted by the Assessing Officer. As has been often held it is not that every error of approach that warrants interference in a revision and unless the error if of such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
