9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vised return and paid the tax is correct in law?" Factual matrix The petitioner is a dealer in boiler components and an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruverumbur Assessment Circle, Trichy. During the year 1999-2000, the assessee filed returns showing the total and taxable turnover. In the meantime, there was an inspection by the enforcement wing officers in the business premises of the dealer and in the said inspection, it was found that two invoices dated May 2, 1999 and November 3, 1999 for a sum of Rs. 2,30,000 and Rs. 4,60,000, respectively, were omitted to be included in the returns. Immediately, after the inspection, the dealer had filed revised return for the months of April, May, July and November, 1999 on O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uppressed turnover of Rs. 6,90,260, was of the opinion that the assessing officer was not correct in adding three times by way of possible sales omission and accordingly, the said addition was set aside. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the addition of Rs. 6,90,260 as sales suppression. The assessing authority also sustained penalty levied under section 12(3)(c) as well as under section 12(3)(b) of the TNGST Act and allowed the appeal in part. Aggrieved by the order dated March 19, 2002, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal was convinced that the actual sales suppression of Rs. 6,90,260 was subsequently shown in the revised return and even before passing the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing officer was justified in reopening the assessment by taking recourse to section 16 of the Act and as such, the authorities were justified in re-determining the turnover by including the sales suppression. We have perused the assessment order as well as the order passed by the appellate authority and also the Tribunal. It is found from the assessment order as modified by the order of the appellate authority that though there was a sales suppression initially amounting to Rs. 6,90,260, the said amount was subsequently shown by filing the return in form A12. The said return was filed long before the completion of assessment proceedings. In fact, even as per the assessment order, the revised returns were filed on October 3, 1999 itsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... believe that either whole or any part of the turnover has escaped assessment to tax, the assessing officer has no jurisdiction for assessment of escaped turnover. When admittedly the suppressed turnover was also taken into consideration for determining the total and taxable turnover for the assessment year 1999-2000, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal were not justified in adding the sales suppression again for the purpose of re-determining the taxable turnover. Sale amount of Rs. 6,90,260 had already suffered tax on account of the revised return submitted by the assessee and the assessing officer completed the assessment on the basis of such revised returns. It was only by resorting to section 16(1)(a) that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
