Madras High Court
Tvl.Sri Narayanasamy Timbers vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By 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.77 of 2009 Tvl.Sri Narayanasamy Timbers, 47-B, Shandy Road, Mettupatty, Dindigul. .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Commercial Tax Officer ? V, Dindigul. .. Respondent PRAYER: Tax Case Revision is filed under Section 37 of the TNGST Act, 1959, against the order of the Joint Commissioner-III (SMR) of Commercial Taxes, Chennai in Ref:M3/58823/97, SMR No.221 of 1998, dated 01.12.2005. !For Petitioner : Mr.P.Radhakrishnan ^For Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader. :ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard Mr.P.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent.
2.This Tax Case Revision has been filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, in exercise of his special powers conferred under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act).
3.The question of law which has been raised for consideration is whether the Joint Commissioner is correct in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Madurai (North) and restoring the order of the assessing officer without properly appreciating the grounds on which the appellants appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Madurai (North) was allowed?
4.The assessment was completed pursuant to an inspection conducted by the officials of the Department, in which certain slips were recovered. The Assessing Officer levied tax and also equal time addition apart from imposing penalty. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the same and set aside the assessment.
5.We have perused the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and we find that it is a detailed order giving elaborate reasons. The Joint Commissioner took up the matter for consideration by exercising powers under Section 34 of the Act and reversed the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that it is devoid of reasons and what has been stated by the Joint Commissioner is that the case law referred to by the petitioner in Tvl.T.Singaravelu V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 103 STC 543, is not applicable. It has not been stated as to how the case law is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. That apart no other independent reasons have been given to set at naught the detailed findings recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, while deleting the equal addition made by the Assessing Officer for estimated suppression. Thus, the impugned order does not show that the special powers of the Joint Commissioner have been initiated after making such enquiries and there was material to form an opinion that the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the absence of such findings by the Joint Commissioner, the impugned order has to be held to be perverse.
6.Accordingly, this Tax Case Revision stands allowed and the impugned order dated 01.12.2005 is set aside. No costs.
To
1.The Joint Commissioner-III (SMR) of Commercial Taxes, Chennai.
2.The Commercial Tax Officer ? V, Dindigul..