9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 3,57,09,410/- and Rs. 3,52,76,415/- respectively, as against the reported total and taxable turnover of Rs. 6,47,81,973/- and Rs. 3,32,29,067.74 respectively, by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramnagar Circle, Coimbatore, vide proceedings dated 25.06.1997. Against which, the respondent has filed Appeal No.304/1997 and vide order dated 16.10.1997, the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Coimbatore, has allowed the said appeal. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred Appeal No.51 of 1998, before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, vide order, da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants reveals that they have purchased the machinery from M/s Gnanambikai Mills Limited, Coimbatore, and the Tuticorin Spinning Mills Limitied, Tuticorin. These purchases have suffered tax at 8% during the year 1986 at the hands of the Tuticorin Spinning Mills Limited and at 4% during the year 1990 at the hands of M/s Ganambikai Mills Limited. The appellants have shown depreciation value of the machinery and the written down value is very less. They have sold these spinning frames to M/s Veerajoti Textiles Mills Private limited, Thekkur, and Sree Shivamalai Andavar Spinning Mills, kangayam for Rs. 3,50,000/- and for Rs. 21,60,000/-. In view of the above the Assessing Authority is not correct to restrict the second sale claim. He has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction for Rs. 4,32,995/- only taking into consideration the purchase cost an adding gross profit at 10%. It is further argue that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after going through all the records and accounts and considering the facts, deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Authority. 7. The appellant-State would state the following in their grounds of appeal: a. The corresponding sales bills issued by the respective mills have not been produced by the appellants to prove that the very same machineries purchased by them have been sold as second sales. b. No proof for the sufferance of tax at an earlier stage in the State for the machineries sold under the caption Second sales was produced. c. It is not free from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontains the particulars of purchase cost of machinery, depreciation claimed each year the details of sales if any and the value thereon. The respondents while filing details for the claim of second sales have furnished list of machinery sold and the ledger folio noted therein relate to the folio number off. The Fixed Assets Register and no separate accounts have been kept for purchase of each and every machinery in the financial ledger. The above facts with records have been verified the ld. Appellate Assistant Commissioner at the time of appeal and on perusal of the connected records only, the claim was allowed. 9. As rightly contended by the respondents, the profit cannot be assessed and what has been sold by the appellants are only l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e end, the State Appeal stands dismissed." 3. Being aggrieved by the abovesaid order, the State has filed the instant Tax Case Revision. 4. Mr.V.Hari Babu, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), submitted that the Tribunal has failed to note that the Assessing Authority had observed that considering the purchase and sale value, the gross profit worked out to Rs. 21,16,368.00, which was abnormal and it is seen that the dealers have purchased textile machinery spares, both within the State and outside the State and used them with the textile machinery and therefore, submitted that the value of textile machinery increased. 5. He also submitted that since the parts used with the textile machinery is higher than the purchase value, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods so purchased had suffered tax already and (ii) that such purchases were made from the dealers whose registration were in force on the date of purchases. 8. In the given case, the respondent had proved with records, the sufferance of tax was in anterior sales within the state. The first appellate authority, after due verification of the connected records and other related materials, allowed the claim of the assessee, as second sales of machinery and the Tribunal, upon due consideration of the facts, has concurred. 9. Material records have been verified. On facts, both the authorities have applied the principles of law, as regards second sale of machinery. We do not find any perversity, warranting interference. 10. For the foregoing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
