9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the enforcement wing on 18.09.2012 and 13.12.2012. Based on the audit, a pre-revision notice dated 18.09.2013 was issued proposing to bring to tax several transactions on the ground that verification of the check-post movements indicated that the turnover from some transactions had escaped assessment and were thus, liable to brought to tax as purchase suppression. This stand of the revenue emanated from the opinion of the enforcement officials indicated at the time of inspection. 3. The petitioner responded that the movement noticed by the revenue wase in relation to machinery and equipments owned by it that were being shunted from its own stock yard/work sites to other stock yards/work sites and there was no sale involved in such tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin 2945/21.4.10 80000000 12000000 9,20,00,000 11500000 Tikitar Industries 65/4.5.10 494949 74242 5,69,191 71149 Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin 2944/7.5.10 50000000 7500000 5,75,00,000 7187500 Indofrench Engineers 2/12.8.10 150000 22500 1,72,500 21563 Simplex Infrastructure, Bangalore 354/9.8.10 100000 15000 1,15,000 14375 Madras Hand Tools 2885/31.8.10 62467 9370 71,837 8980 Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin 24889/2.12.10 100000 15000 1,15,000 14375 Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin 24888/2.12.10 200000 30000 2,30,000 28750 Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin 77934/3.1.11 100000 15000 115,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the position that according to them the equipments in question were not seen to have been reflected in the balance sheet of the petitioner. 7. Heard learned counsel in detail. 8. That the petitioner had transferred equipment from one State to another is not in dispute. What has to be determined is whether these equipments were owned by the petitiomer and were being deployed in the business of piling and other civil works in different locations/projects or whether they constituted capital assets that were being sold, generating taxable turnover. 9. The case of the petitioner is that the equipment/capital assets constituted its own assets and were being deployed as per requirement at various projects sites. According to it, the movement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was over. More over, they have not also furnished the Form F Declarations duly obtained from their Karnataka Branch for the receipt of the Machine in question. The Form F Declaration is the "Statutory Form" prescribed for the proof of record for the Stock Transfer of goods, under the CST Act. The Certificate of the Auditor to the effect that the goods are still in their ownership is also not acceptable for the reasons explained above. In the absence of valid records, it is treated as purchase suppression. And the machine is treated as sold in Tamil Nadu. The corresponding sale turnover will be arrived and assessed to tax under the Act. The contention of the dealer is not acceptable.' 12. According to the Officer, the supporting e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity upon an assessee should contain valid and acceptable reasons for effecting modifications/additions to the returned turnover and should speak for itself, in casting such liability. In the present case, I find the order of assessment bereft of such reasoning. 15. I this set aside the impugned order and allow this writ petition. The petitioner will appear before the Assessing Officer on 1st of October, 2019 at 10.30 AM to explain its stand with evidences in support thereof. No further notice need be issued in this regard. The audited financials of the company for the years in question including balance sheet and depreciation statement shall be placed before the Assessing Officer as well. After hearing the petitioner, an order of ssessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
