The State of Tamilnadu vs Tvl. Bhagavan Metals

Chitra Venkataraman, J.—The revenue is on revision, as against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, relating to the assessment

year 1993-1994.

The place of business of the Appellants was subjected to inspection by the Enforcement Wing Officers, on 25.8.1993, wherein, they found

deficit stock of 114.790 kgs of S.S. Sheets. The verification of the extracted bills of inter-state purchase of S.S. Patta and S.S. Wares, with

reference to the accounts revealed inter-state purchase of S.S. wares, S.S. Sheet and S.S. patta for 130 kgs 1824 kgs and 2510 kgs,

respectively, and the same were not accounted for in the accounts of the Assessee. Thus, based on the inspection results, the Assessing Officer

determined the total and taxable turnover and levied penalty, u/s 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

It is seen from the reading of the assessment order that in respect of the inter-state purchase relating to the three bills secured at the time of

inspection by the Enforcement Officers, the Assessee denied the purchase, on the ground that they had not taken delivery of the inter-state

purchase. Evidently, the Registration Certificate Numbers of the sellers were not found in the bills. After considering the objections taken, the

assessment as regards the inter-state purchases was made.

The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who pointed out the stock variation noticed at the time of

inspection and that the omission to record the interstate purchase amounting to Rs. 1,19,469/-, was a clear indication of the purchase suppression

and sales omission. Going by the materials thus available, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment on actual suppression.

However, as regards the two times addition made for probable omission, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner sustained the same at the equal

time. Corresponding penalty was thus sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

Not satisfied with the relief thus granted, the Assessee went on appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein, the Assessee took the

plea that the documents seized and the extracts taken from the check post clearly showed that the outside state dealers names were not shown

along with the address. Thus, the Assessee contended that there was No. material to hold that there was purchase suppression leading to a sales

omission.

In a very cryptic order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal accepted the plea of the Assessee by stating ""the argument of

the learned Advocate seems to be correct"". Except for extracting the arguments of the learned Advocate, the order of the Tribunal carries No.

discussion referring the materials to cancel the additions made on the basis of the actual materials recovered. The Tribunal held that while cancelling

the actual suppression, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ought to have cancelled the addition made twice on the probable suppression and

omission. Thus, the Tribunal deleted the equal addition made to the actual suppression. The Tribunal, thus, upheld the actual suppression and

deleted the equal addition, and correspondingly, reduced the penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is on appeal before this Court.

A reading of the order of the Assessing Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal shows the inconsistent stand taken by

the Assessee. While before the assessing officer the Assessee denied having any transaction with the Delhi parties, before the Tribunal, the

Assessee accepted the purchase effected from these sources. Thus, the extracts and the stock variation clearly pointed out the nature of dealing of

the Assessee warranting equal addition, as had been done by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

As already pointed out, the Tribunal passed a very mechanical order, extracted the arguments and accepted the plea of the Assessee on the

face value to delete the equal time addition. Although, normally, on a revision this Court does interfere with the order of the Tribunal, where there

are findings of the Tribunal, which is the highest fact finding authority in the hierarchy of appeal and revision authorities, when the order of the

Tribunal lacks any material to base its view and when there is No. discussion at all as to why it thought fit to cancel the estimated addition, on the

face of the materials available, as had been found by the Assessing Officer, as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, we uphold the

contention of the Revenue. Consequently, we have No. hesitation in allowing the Tax Case Revision, thereby, we set aside the order of the

Tribunal and restore the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tax Case is allowed. No. costs.