TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rise - Thus the tax assessment confirmed - When the said dealer has not proved the genuineness of the transactions, and there being no material to substantiate the contention of the assessee that the said Raghavendra Enterprises had in fact handled the goods, even for the period prior to the date of cancellation of registration – Tribunal order upheld – Decided against assessee. - TC (Revision).No.379 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Sundareswaran for M/s. K. Venkatasubramanian For the Respondent : Mr. A. R. Jayapratap Govt. Advocate (Taxes) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Chitra Venkataraman,J.) The above Tax Case Revision is filed at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, the assessment was reopened to tax the turnover of ₹ 38,28,086/- on the ground that the purchaser Raghavendra Enterprises, Avadi, was only a bill trader, whose registration was cancelled by the proceedings of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Avadi Assessment Circle dated 19.11.1993. The assessee however pointed out that the said cancellation being only on 19.11.1993, the purchase made prior to 19.11.1993 for ₹ 9,55,349.50 be allowed for exemption. On considering the above said submission, the Assessing Officer however rejected the claim by stating that merely because the order of cancellation was dated 19.11.1993, it would not mean that the purchases effected prior to that date would be allowed for exemption. Thus, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffice revealed that it was under occupation of one Beer Mohamed, a local resident, and his family members were not aware of one Palani, who happened to be the Proprietor of Raghavendra Enterprises. There was no stocks found. A notice was issued for cancellation. A notice was also affixed in the principal Office. Even then, it was found that he was not available. Hence, a registered letter was sent to Palani on 13.9.1993. Even though the same was served on 21.9.1993, there was no reply. Further it was pointed out that the dealer had not filed any returns. Taking note of the said fact, the registration certificate was cancelled by the Assessing Officer and the cancellation certificate was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. Thus, applying the decision 28 STC 227 M.K.KANDASWAMI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU and 36 STC 191 STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. M.K.KANDASWAMI, the Tribunal held that unless the purchases had suffered tax, the question of excluding the operation of Section 7-A did not arise. Thus, the assessment was confirmed. However, the Tribunal cancelled the levy of penalty based on Section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal by the assessee. 5. Even though learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the cancellation of registration was only on 19.11.1993 and hence, exemption could be allowed in respect of sales taken place prior to the date as taken from the registered dealer, we do not find any ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
