9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,132/- in his return. However, the taxable turnover was re-determined as Rs.39,93,764/- by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer namely, the third respondent has treated the Steel purchased by the petitioner as sale of Steel Grills liable to tax under Section 3-B of the TNGST Act, 1959 - As per Section 3-B(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the taxable turnover of a dealer for the transfer of property involved in the execution of works contract shall be arrived after deducting the value of goods used in the execution of works contract which were purchased from a registered dealer and were liable to pay tax at the rate specified in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule of the Act. The Tribunal has not committed any error while reversing the decision of the second respondent Appellate Assistant Commissioner as the petitioner did not produce any documents to substantiate that the steel that was purchased from a registered dealer within the State of Tamil Nadu was not used in the execution of works contract. Further, the scope for interference / judicial review of an order of Tribunal is very limited. Unless the order suffers from violation of principle o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er-respondent himself to an extent of Rs.35,00,132/-. If the portion relating to Steel is deducted an amount of Rs.14,79,126/- which had been assessed at the time of original assessment. So when the revision of assessment was taken up by the revisional authority consequent to the inspection that was conducted on 16.12.97, the dealer-respondent himself had estimated the tax liability in respect of the Steel and had arrived at the turnover and filed the statement before the revisional authority which were not taken note of either by the revisional authority nor by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. So the assessment that was made by the revisional authority on a turnover of Rs.24,32,693/- is restricted to the turnover that was admitted by the dealer-respondent to an extent of Rs. 20,21,006/-. The dispute is only with reference to the rate of tax. If the dealer-respondent had worked out the tax at 4% and left with that 4% then the question of converting the steel into grills would not arise. But he had also worked out the SC due, only because he had converted it into grills. If the working stopped with 4% then the steel that had been purchased had been used as such in the execution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner, by an order dated 13.12.1999, reversed the order of the third respondent with the following observations:- 4) I heard the arguments of both the representatives and also verified the records produced before me. This is a case of revision made based on the report of the Enforcement Wing Officials without any proper application of mind by the Assessing Authority. The Enforcement Officials have also sent the best judgement proposal without verifying as to whether the appellants have been earlier assessed to tax or not? This D3 proposal is dated 27.1.99 whereas the original order has been passed on 16.3.98 itself. If only the Enforcement Wing Officials had verified the assessment made earlier, they would not have sent this best judgement D3 proposal. The Assessing Authority has also not sent the file relating to original assessment made. He has sent a file containing 42 pages relating to revisional assessment made only. Having a copy of the D3 report the enclosure for the same, the statement recorded at the time of inspection and the revision notice issued by him and the orders passed by him. He has also not given valid reasoning to over-rule the objections. 5) There is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofit is proper. I sustain the assessment made for Rs.2,87,957/- at 8% and Rs.2,13,999/- at 11%. I dismiss the appeal relating to this issue. 7) In the original order passed, the Assessing Officer has found that they have paid tax in excess. He has adjusted the tax payment to the tax due. He has levied penalty under Section 12(3)(c) for the balated submission of returns only. However in the revised order passed he has levied penalty under Section 12(3)(b). The amount of penalty levied is also incorrect. If revised orders were passed as stated earlier, I hold that there would be only excess payment in the case on hand. Hence, I hold that the penalty levied under Section 12(3) (b) is not proper. I set aside the same. To conclude the appeal is MODIFIED. 7. As mentioned above, the order of the second respondent Appellate Commissioner dated 13.12.1999 in A.P.No.1192/1999 was reversed by the first respondent Tribunal vide impugned order 12.12.2006 in C.T.S.A.No.194 of 2000. Operative portion of impugned order has been extracted above. 8. It is submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable as the demand is based on the D-3 proposal forwarded by the Enforcement Wing. It is further sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act, 1959, the taxable turnover of a dealer for the transfer of property involved in the execution of works contract shall be arrived after deducting the value of goods used in the execution of works contract which were purchased from a registered dealer and were liable to pay tax at the rate specified in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule of the Act. 13. The tax on the Steel purchased by the petitioner was determined at 8% alleging that the petitioner had converted the Steel purchased into Grill. The amount confirmed by the third respondent was reversed by the second respondent. Later, by the impugned order, the Tribunal has confirmed the same. 14. We are of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error while reversing the decision of the second respondent Appellate Assistant Commissioner as the petitioner did not produce any documents to substantiate that the steel that was purchased from a registered dealer within the State of Tamil Nadu was not used in the execution of works contract. 15. That apart, this Court is not really concerned with the decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rather, it is concerned only with the decision making proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
