9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and an order of assessment was passed on self-assessment basis, accepting the returns filed. Finding some discrepancies therein, the assessment came to be revised under Section 16 (1) of the by way of a revision order dated 31.03.2003. 2. One of the issues that arose for consideration was a claim by the petitioner of exemption on second sales of cashew kernels. According to the petitioner, cashew kernels had been purchased from three dealers being, (i) R. Govindasamy, Padayachi, Jayankondam (R.C. No. 3620700) for a sum of Rs. 1,59,500; (ii) V. Poorasamy Chettiar, Andimadam, (R.C. NO. 3620796) for a sum of Rs. 73,500.00; & (iii) T. Annamalai, Andimadam (R.C. No. 3621071) for a sum of Rs. 84,000.00/-, amounting in toto to a sum of Rs. 3,17, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records revealed that the Assessing Officer has answered all the points raised by the appellant in the assessment proceedings dated 31.3.2003. At the time of arguments, the appellant has stated that the details of first purchase made in 2000-2001 kept in stock, subsequent years, sales were effected. In the return argument filed by the Departmental Representative has stated that this reply was already considered by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order. Moreover, the appellant did not file any quantitative details along with profit and loss account at the time of check of accounts. The plea of appellant that the goods were kept as closing stock and that they were sold in 2001-02 is not acceptable. The arguments advanced by the ld. Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as originally made on a deemed basis accepting the returns filed. Enquiry commenced at the stage of regular assessment. We agree with the argument that even if the sellers had not been registered as dealers, the petitioner could still have claimed second sales exemption. However, the issue that arises is as to whether at all there was any first sale in this case. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced any material, barring invoices, to establish purchases from the alleged sellers. No attempt was made at any stage of the proceedings to produce the three entities who are stated to have effected sales to the petitioner. Moreover, the enquiry conducted by the respondents has established that the dealer registration numbers furnished b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r could well have produced the alleged vendors to support the claim of second sales. This was never done at any stage of the proceedings and we are hence of the categoric view that there is nothing to support the assessee's contention in this regard. 15. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the following decisions (i) Govindan and Co., v The State of Tamil Nadu [(1975) 3 STC 50 (Mad)] and (ii) Kathiresan Yarn Stores v The State of Tamil Nadu [(1978) 42 STC 121] 16. In Govindan & Co (supra), there was an inspection of that assessee's premises. Clarifications were sought in regard to certain purchases and the explanation put forth by Govindan and Co., was that the purchases had been made from 12 dealers. Since that dealer had n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how that their sellers have in fact paid tax and it is enough for them to show that the earlier sales are taxable sales and that the tax is really payable by their sellers. Therefore, the direction given by the Tribunal that the petitioners are to show that the tax has been paid by their sellers on the iron and steel goods sold by them to the petitioners does not appear to be correct." 18. The petitioner relies on the finding that 'to claim the benefit of tax on the ground that their sales are second sales, the petitioners need not show that their sellers have in fact paid tax and it is enough for them to show that the earlier sales are taxable sales and that the tax is really payable by their sellers'. 19. The above finding does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and they have accepted the assessment and paid / paying taxes. Further their sales during the year 2001-02 has been verified and found that they have sold to a tune of Rs. 72,009.00 only towards interstate sales during the months of August 2001 and October 2001 for which they have paid the taxes only on 7.8.2002 i.e. after a total delay of more than one year." 22. To reiterate, the assessee has not, at any stage of the proceeding, raised the question of double jeopardy or sought adjustment of the demand against the amounts already paid. This issue thus involves the factual question of whether at all there is double taxation which cannot be considered at this stage. 23. Coming to the levy of penalty, the petitioner submits that the return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
