TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 3,76,435/-. The turnover, which has now been restored by the Tribunal being ₹ 5,25,000/- was never appealed against - Similarly, the Revenue did not challenge the order passed by the first appellate authority deleting the entire penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act. Thus, the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. Tax case revision is allowed - the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside; and the order passed by the first appellate authority is restored - decided in favor of petitioner-dealer. - Tax Case (Revision) No.99 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 4-2-2019 - Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mrs. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan For the Petitioner : Mr.P.Prithvi Chopda for Mr.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 31.05.2012, in respect of the turnover of ₹ 5,25,000/-. This turnover was assessed to tax by the Assessing Officer on the ground of purchase difference on the estimation of sales. Admittedly, the turnover which was assessed to tax at 12.5% was set aside by the first appellate authority, viz., the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)-III, Chennai, vide order dated 17.05.2013. In fact, the other revision of assessment including levy of penalty was also set aside by the first appellate authority. 5.The Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal raising only two contentions, with regard to difference in sales turnover of ₹ 9,40,800/- at 12.5%; and receipt of cartage for ₹ 3,76,435/-. Furthermore, on a perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.The Tribunal, being a second appellate authority and not a revisional authority, has been given under sub-Section (4) of Section 58 the powers of the appellate authority under Sections 51 and 52 to go into all materials contained in the assessment order, and not only the materials agitated by the appellant, but it has also been given power to enhance the assessment. This power could be exercised by it only if a petition for enhancement is filed by the State under sub- Section (5) of Section 58 within a period of 60 days mentioned therein and the delay beyond this period being condonable subject to the State showing sufficient cause. 8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. M/s.Vijaya Stores, 1979 AIR 355 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
