9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner preferred Second Appeal before the 1st Respondent in C.T.A.No.198/03. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore preferred Appeal in C.T.SA.No.293/03 which have culminated in the Impugned Order dated 28.10.2006. Relevant portion of the Impugned Order reads as under: "8. We have considered the arguments of both the sides and also verified the connected records. It is seen from the records that the original assessment on the appellant/respondent was made under section 12 (1)(a) of the TNGST Act. The place of business was inspected by the officers of the department on 23.3.00. At the time of inspection they had verified the stock and found difference in the same valued at Rs.1,72,910/. It was explained by the appellant/respondent before the first appellate authority that the stock difference had been arrived at adopting incorrect details of opening stock and also purchase and sales. The inspecting officers had also adopted gross profit 20% instead of the correct gross profit of 12.17%. The first appellate authority had got the above details verified through the learned Departmental Representative and had fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20-A on 21.03.00 and brought the same to accounts. But it is to be pointed out that the place of business was inspected on 23.3.00 and no books of accounts other than the delivery notes were produced before the inspecting officers. Even the sale bill books were not produced before the inspecting officers. At the time of processing, the appellant/dealer had produced only bill no.220 dated 21.3.00 and he had not produced bill no.220-A. In respect of slip no.6, though the appellant had claimed before the processing officer that he had raised bill, he had not produced it. When the other bills are typed copies, this bill is in manuscript. It is seen that the suffix 'A' is added to bill no.220 only and in respect of the other sale bills no such prefix is made and it is proved that the appellant, to escape from the liability to tax, had created bill no 220-A subsequently. Therefore it is evident that the bill no.220-A had been raised not in the regular course of business, but subsequent to processing of the records and that therefore the same was correctly treated as suppressions by the Assessing Authority and also the first appellate authority. In respect of bill no.220, with ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been added in the taxable turnover and that the amount was given to the driver for purchasing a 2nd hand van for business purpose. It is further submitted that on the date of inspection i.e., on 23.03.2000, the Petitioner had sufficient bank balance and therefore it would be incorrect to affirm there is sale suppression of rubber thread @ 12%. It is further submitted that sales turnover of Polyster yarn, Textile spares and Rubber Thread are assessed at 2%, 4% and 12% respectively. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer ought not to have levied tax at 12% on the entire turnover of Rs.1,95,000/- treating it as a sales of rubber thread at 12%. As far as additions are concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the addition of 50% to taxable turnover in respect of slip no.5 and 6 is concerned, he further submitted that the issue is now squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Sri Vinayaga Agencies reported in (2010) 27 VST 358 (Mad) wherein it is held as follows:- "In the assessment order, a mere addition was made in the last column making an equal addition without giving any reasoning at all. In fact, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o consideration of the opening stock as on 01.04.1994,purchases and sales upto the date of inspection, which is the cumulative effect of alleged suppression right from the period from 01.04.1994 to till the time of inspection. Moreover, the stock variation was arrived only on the basis of money value of the goods and not on the quantitative basis. Under the above circumstances, we feel that no further addition is required for the stock variation arrived by the trading account method. It is rightly held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of T. Singaravelu reported in 103 STC 543 that in the absence of any continuous pattern of suppression or similar pattern of suppression or in the absence of any brought forward entries, the further addition for the estimated suppression for probable omission cannot be made. Hence, following the principles held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case referred supra, we are of the view that no further addition is required in this case with reference to the circumstances stand above. Accordingly, we set aside and delete the addition of equal amount of Rs. 1,86,081/- and allow this portion of the appeal." The Tribunal has, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
