Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By vs Tvl.P.N.S.Crusher on 4 May, 2017

Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam, P.Velmurugan

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 04.05.2017  

CORAM   

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM            
and 
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN             

TAX CASE(MD)No.47 of 2009    

The State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,   
Tiruchirappalli Division, Tiruchirappalli.                                      
                                ..  Petitioner

Vs.

1.Tvl.P.N.S.Crusher,
   Main Road, Alathur Gate,
   Perambalur District.

2.Tvl.Senthamarai Crusher,
   Melakunnapatty, Thuraiyur.

3.Tvl.Dhanalakshmi Blue Metals, 
   Thuraiyur.                                       ..  Respondents

PRAYER: Tax Case Revision is filed under Section 38(1) of the TNGST Act, 
1959, to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
(AB), Madurai, passed in M.T.A.No.575 of 2002, dated 12.11.2002.

!For Petitioner                 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan,
                                  Additional Government Pleader.

^For Respondents                : No appearance 




:ORDER  

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the petitioner/Revenue.

2.This tax case revision is filed by the Revenue, challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Madurai in M.T.A.No.575 of 2002, dated 12.11.2002.

3.The question which arises for consideration in the instant case is whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting the estimation based on the electricity consumption in the respondents' Stone Crushing Unit. The order passed by the Assessing Officer is solely based upon the electricity consumption charges. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer did not embark upon any independent exercise, except to arrive at the turnover based on the presumed value of the number of units consumed by the respondents. This order was affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the respondents/assessees filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, has rendered a specific finding that the electricity consumption alone has been the basis for estimating the sale value in respect of the blue metal and other goods. Further investigation was not done by the Assessing Officer to ascertain whether there is any unaccounted sales by way of cross verification and no instances have been noticed that the assessees had transported the goods without valid records. Further, after taking note of the fact that there is no transaction outside the account, which were established by the Department, making the assessment solely based on the disparity in the electricity consumption, was held to be not sustainable.

4.The question which arises for consideration in this revision has been considered in the cases of C.Sivasamy Firm v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruverambur Circle reported in (2012) 47 VST 12 (Mad) and State of Tamil Nadu v. V.S.S. and Company reported in (2013) 60 VST 289(mad).

5.The Assessing Officer having not made any independent investigation and completed the assessment solely based upon the disparity in the electricity consumption, has been held to be not tenable in the aforementioned decisions.

6.Thus, the question of law raised in this revision case is answered in favour of the assessee and as against the Revenue. Accordingly, this Tax Case Revision is dismissed. No Costs.

To The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirappalli Division, Tiruchirappalli..