9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion made, the dealer preferred an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner (CT)-II, Chennai, who allowed the same vide order in A.P.No.42/04 dated 25.06.2004. Against the orders of the Appellate Commissioner (CT)-II, Chennai, the State filed an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai in STA No.284 of 2005. 4. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai, vide order dated 29.10.2011, dismissed the State appeal. 5. Tax case revision is filed against the order of the Tribunal on the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in accepting the books of accounts of the dealer/assessee at the time of hearing of appeal when the same was not produced before the Assessing Authority for passing order of assessment ? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in accepting the books of accounts of the dealer/assessee without remanding the same to the Assessing Authority for verifying the same with other connected records ?" 6. Substantiating the above substantive questions of law, Mr.V.Hari Babu, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Inspecting Officer have verified the records relates to 2001-02, whereas, these purchase were relates to the year 2000-01 which have been found duly accounted for. Hence the Inspecting Officer ascertain that the appellants have failed to account for these purchases made from Hong Kong was not correct since the appellants have accounted for these purchases for the year 2000-01 instead of the year 2001-02 since the purchases have been accounted for by the appellants the addition made by the Assessing Authority for Rs. 8,62,726.00 by adding G.P of 5% on the import value of Rs. 8,21,645.00 was set aside and relief claimed by the appellants were allowed. 7. The equal time addition for estimated suppression arrived by the Assessing Authority for Rs. 8,62,726.00 was also set aside since the relief claimed by the appellants on actual suppression is set aside and deleted. 8. In respect of levy of penalty, since the relief claimed on actual suppression is set aside the consequent levy of penalty of Rs. 51,764.00 under Section 16(2)(d) of TNGST Act is also deleted. In fine, the appeal stands ALLOWED." 8. Though State sought for reversal, upon hearing the rival parties, the Tribunal, vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii) After rendering of return and account under self assessment the unit was inspected on 5.9.01 and the inspection resulted unearthing of purchase suppression and its consequence sales omission at Rs. 8,62,726/- at 4% and hence equal time addition of sales omission was also made by the revenue. (iii) The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) in his order at page 4 para 6 had deleted entire addition under the pretext that the suppression noticed at the time of inspection was subsequently accounted for. This is the main contention by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT). (iv) The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)'s contention is not acceptable, because the dealer had admitted the purchase omission and consequential sales suppression at Rs. 8,62,726/- before the inspecting official and also handed over cheque for Rs. 8,58,370/- in cheque No.606750 dated 6.9.2001 drawn on IOB, Sowcarpet (Page 99 of assessment record). Therefore facts once admitted before the inspecting official cannot be rebutted subsequently be the appellant before Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT). (v) Even assuming the consequential sales suppression at Rs. 8,62,726/- as subsequently accounte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the import effected in the year 2000-2001 would not be accounted for in the year 2001-2002, but only in the year 2000-2001. The alleged imported turnover was duly accounted for in the books of accounts much earlier to the date of inspection. Even in the reconciliation statement prepared by the officials at the time of inspection, reflects sales from 1.4.2000 to 5.9.2001 as Rs. 4,90,374/- and the closing stock of Rs. 13,04,809/-. It is to be noted that in the absence of purchase, there is no possibility of showing closing stock of Rs. 13,04,809/-. The respondent submitted that the alleged suppressed turnover of Rs. 4,28,900/- is duly accounted for in the books of accounts and tax was paid by effecting sales of the same, in the previous assessment year itself. It is also not out of place to mention that the entire payment such as customs duty, clearing and forwarding charges, clearing agent charges etc., are made through bank and the same has been relied on at page 2 of the assessment order to arrive at the estimated value of the consignment to the tune of Rs. 8,21,645/-. Having relied on the documents such as bank challan and admitted the fact that the payment is through ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of purchase "No purchase during 2001-2002". On pursuant the appeal file at page 27, the inspecting officers initiated and written as "inspected" 5.9.2001 Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. Group VI E(C) at page 26, the accounts for 2000 has already been found. So the documents proves that it contains import of goods from Hong Kong and also import charges like customs duty, freight charges and other charges. So there is no force in the contention of the appellant that the above said accounts were not brought into account. At the time of inspection, the inspecting officers also signed on that date i.e., on 5.9.2001. Since the turnover was found in the books of accounts, it could not be termed as suppression. On relying the fact, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner come to the conclusion that the order of the revisional authority is not correct and he set aside the suppression and equal time addition and also the imposition of penalty. On hearing the both sides and on perusal of records and orders of Appellate Assistant Commissioner, we have come to the conclusion that there is no error in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and we hereby confirm the order of the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
