9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner that in spite of repeated requests, the regular books of account and other records said to have been recovered were retained by the enforcement wing officials and therefore, the petitioner could not represent his case effectively before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, the first respondent herein, for finalisation of the proceedings. It is the further case of the petitioner that the purchase invoices and other connected records related to the transactions made after the date of inspection were readily available with the petitioner and though they were willing to produce the same before the assessing officer to enable him to check the records along with seized records for finalisation of assessment proceedings for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99, their request was not accepted by the assessing officer and he passed the best of judgment assessment order on June 30, 2000. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed two separate appeals under section 31 of the Act, before the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Coimbatore-18, second respondent herein, praying for a direction to the first respondent to return the seized regular books of account and other re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner. It is further submitted by the petitioner that on appeal, the orders dated September 26, 2002, passed by the assessing authority, the first respondent herein, were again set aside by the appellate authority on July 18, 2005 and November 7, 2005, respectively and the matters were remanded back once again to the assessing officer, with a direction to carefully recheck the transactions of the assessee with the entries in their accounts and particulars mentioned in D7 slips, etc., correlate them and then pass a legally justifiable assessment order. The appellate authority further directed that in the case of purchase bills available with the petitioner indicating the single point tax sufferance, the assessing authority has to issue cross check references, which will be a far more legally valid than demanding the petitioner to file affidavits from the sellers. The petitioner further submitted that without complying with the directions of the appellate authority, the assessing officer has passed the impugned orders of assessment on the ground that one of the Directors, Thiru. Sushil George has failed to produce the accounts and utilise the opportunities given to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment orders for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively. Perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner's place of business was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officials on October 10, 1998 and they recovered the following materials: "1. One correspondence filed marked (A) containing business transactions = 92 slips. 2.. Invoices filed marked (B) containing invoice copies and delivery chalan copies for the year 1997-98 = 57 slips. 3.. File marked (C) delivery chalan books containing 109 sheets for the year 1997-98, used sheets 1 to 21, unused leaves 22 to 109. 4.. Invoice file marked (D) 103 pages. Used invoice pages 1 to 10, 14 to 17, 18 to 19 cancelled and original copy of the invoice No. 13/2503-1998 not available 20 to 44, unused 45 to 103. 5.. One Peacock brand file marked (E) containing purchase bills for 97-98 = 32 Nos. 6.. One eagle file marked (F) containing order forms 42 nos. 7.. One conora office file marked (G), containing 33 sheets to other State purchases and corresponding letter." The matter has been remitted by the appellate authority on two occasions to the assessing officer. In so far as the first occasion is concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y rejected the request of the petitioner for extension of time and once again confirmed the same proposals as per the original order. On appeal, the appellate authority by order dated July 18, 2005 in A.P. No. 1254 of 2002, set aside the assessment order once again and directed the assessing authority to recheck the transactions of the assessee with the entries in their accounts and pass a justifiable assessment order. Thereafter, on receipt of the notice, Mr. Sushil George appeared on December 16, 2006 and submitted a letter stating that the account books were with the auditor and that he would produce them on December 17, 2006. Since he has failed to produce the same, the assessing officer has confirmed the proposals, by his order dated June 12, 2007. Similarly, for the assessment year 1998-99, the assessing authority has issued six summons fixing various dates for production of accounts and since there was no response, the assessing officer proposed to assess the tax based on the records available and issued a detailed notice in Asst. No. 1822143/98-99 dated February 29, 2000. The abovesaid notice was received by A. Varghese on March 9, 2003. The petitioner had submitted a lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of available purchase bills, the assessing authority directed the petitioner to obtain affidavits from the respective sellers so as to confirm whether the seller had in fact paid the tax to the respective assessing authority or not. Therefore, the main contention of the petitioner, at that time was that though the assessing officer had powers under section 54 and 54A of the Act to obtain the certificate of proof of earlier sufferance of tax from the respective assessing officers, he ought not to have directed to the petitioner to obtain and file affidavits for the payment of tax from the sellers as evidence for earlier sufferance of tax, and therefore, the proceedings were illegal. In the second round of appeals, the appellate authority directed the assessing officer to verify from the respective sellers by issue of cross check references to their respective assessing officers and obtain the proof of payment of tax made by them and thereafter, pass the justifiable order. Before the appellate authority, the contention of the petitioner was that the assessing authority should not have contacted the assessee over phone and that a statutory notice ought to have been issued to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
