The State of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl. Sri Jayalakshmi Crusher Industries

F.M. Ibbrahim Kalifulla, J.—The State has come forward with this revision, in which the following substantial questions of law have been

raised:

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in having affirmed the order of the first appellate authority by

deleting the assessment made on the basis of consumption of electricity only on the ground that the survey was conducted subsequent to the

assessment year 1996-97 and that the result cannot be applied for the previous period ?

Whether the order of the Tribunal in not restoring the consequent penalty is legally correct?

The assessee is a dealer in stone jelly and chips. The assessment year is 1996-97. According to the assessing authority, on a survey conducted

in the year 1998, the electricity consumption in the assessee''s production unit came to be noted as 23,812 units. By taking the said consumption of

the year 1998, the assessing authority, by adopting 16.5 units of electricity for one unit of jelly and based on that, measuring the chips production

as 5% of the jelly production, revised the tax by applying Section 16(2) of the TNGST Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, set

aside the order of the assessing authority holding that once the assessment for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 was completed, in the absence of

any sales omission detected or any other allegation of misfeasance in the matter of maintenance of accounts, there could have been no scope to

invoke Section 16(2) for making a revision. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also held that the current consumption of the year 1998 cannot

be the basis for revising the assessment of the previous years. The Tribunal having upheld the said conclusion of the Appellate Assistant

Commissioner by the order impugned in this revision, the State has come forward with this revision petition.

We heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioner. We concur with the conclusions of the lower appellate authorities. As

rightly held by the lower appellate authorities, when the current consumption for the relevant years, viz., 1995-96 and 1996-97 were very much

available, there was no reason why the assessing authority should have taken the current consumption of the year 1998 in order to make a revision

assessment u/s 16(2) of the Act for the Assessment Year 1996-97. Further, admittedly, there was no sales omission detected in order to state that

invocation of Section 16(2) of the Act for making a revision assessment became imperative.

In such circumstances, concurring with the conclusions of the lower appellate authorities, we do not find any scope to entertain this tax case

revision. The revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.