TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sses as their sister concerns and the respondent were functioning at the same place of business. The matter was considered by the Tribunal and they were convinced and found that there was no stock discrepancy. Appeal dismissed. - T.C.No.2 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2019 - Mr. Justice S. Manikumar And Mrs. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Haribabu Additional Government Pleader For the Respondent : Served No appearance ORDER V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. The present Tax Case is filed against the findings of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, in respect of Appeal No.58 of 1998 made in its common order, dated 12.06.2002 made in Appeal Nos.58 and 103 of 1998. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- In respect of the respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Central-II Assessment Circle, Tiruppur in his assessment order in TNGST No.2461525/95-96, dated 11.07.1996 determined a total and taxable turnover of ₹ 4,82,375/- against the reported total and taxable turnover of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended by the dealers. (ii) The Tribunal failed to note that the bought note vouchers bearing Nos.1,2,3,4,5 6 dated 26.12.1995 were prepared only subsequent to inspection and entries for the same were made in stock register at pages 20-21 and those records were not produced during inspection on 26.12.1995 and hence, it is quite clear that they were fabricated records subsequent to inspection for the purpose of claim relief in appeal. (iii) The Tribunal failed to note that the dealers had subsequently accounted for the transactions in the books of accounts, which is not acceptable in view of the decision rendered by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in T.C.Nos.2252 2153 of 1997 dated 08.10.2001 in the case of Suresh Kirtilal Jewellers wherein, it was held that subsequently accounting for do not alter the character of suppressions unearthed during inspection. (iv) Inasmuch as the levy of tax is quite justified, the consequent levy of penalty is also warranted in this case. 6. The case of the respondent is that they are traders in butter and ghee and have declared their total and taxable turnover at ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with the sister concerns, which were also having the dealership and the business is conducted at the same premises and they would also submit that the stock of ghee, as per the stock book, was 7500Kg and the actual stock available was 8402Kg and hence, excess was 902Kg, which is due to the mixing up of goods. 11. The respondent and the sister concerns filed Appeals in No. 225 of 1996 dated 20.08.1997 and No.270 of 1996 dated 06.11.1997 respectively for the Assessment Year 1995-96. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Central-II Assessment Circle, Tiruppur in his Assessment Order TNGST No.2461525/95-96 dated 11.07.1996, in respect of M/s.Parvathi Trading Company has determined total and taxable turnover of ₹ 4,82,375/- against the reported total and taxable turnover of ₹ 1,18,525/- and in respect of M/s.Sekaran Trading Company, they have determined the total and taxable turnover as ₹ 5,10,030/- and ₹ 64,640/- against the reported total and taxable turnover ₹ 4,45,370/- and Nil respectively. 12. Aggrieved by the orders of the first Appellate Authority, the appellant preferred Second Appeals before the Tribunal disputing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s.Parvathi Trading Company : 582 Kgs M/s.Sri Kumaran Dairy : 500 Kgs 1,082 Kgs 15. That apart, the respondent would submit that there was no stock difference and the above discrepancies were noticed by the inspecting officials only due to mingling up of stocks of the respondent and their sister concerns together and the difference noticed. at the time of inspection, has been subsequently brought to the books of accounts and the discrepancies should be cancelled. 16. The respondent would submit that in similar cases, subsequent accounting was accepted and this Hon'ble Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu .v. Gomraj Metal Works reported in 3 MTCR 83 , held that the estimation for actual suppression does not arise if the variation is subsequently accounted for. 17. As per the circular, the respondent would submit that, it is not correct to estimate probable purchases of butter on the basis of the stock discrepancies found at the time of inspection and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
