Madras High Court
M/S. Bubble Package vs The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate on 20 October, 2022
Author: S. Vaidyanathan
Bench: S. Vaidyanathan
W.P. No. 13992 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
W.P. No. 13992 of 2007
M/s. Bubble Package,
17, Motilal Street,
T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Main Bench,
rep. by its Secretary,
City Civil Court Building,
Chennai.
2. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner
(CT) II,
VI, Kuralagam Annex, Chennai.
3. The Commercial Tax Officer,
T. Nagar (South) Asst. Circle,
Chennai. ..Respondents
1\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 13992 of 2007
Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent
in STA No. 294/2002 and quash the order dated 03.02.2007.
For Petitioner :: Mr. Samuel Rupesh Rajkumar for
M/s.P. Rajkumar
R. Aravind Raj
For Respondents :: Mr.T.N.C. Kaushik
Addl. Govt. Pleader
for R2 & R3
ORDER
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND C. SARAVANAN,J.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition as against the order dated 03.02.2007 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal/1st respondent herein in STA No. 294 of 2002.
2. By the aforesaid order, the 1st respondent/Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has reversed the order passed by the 2nd respondent/Appellate 2\6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 13992 of 2007 Assistant Commissioner (CT) II in A.P. No. 243/2001 vide order dated 13.04.2001. The 2nd respondent/Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) II had earlier allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and thereby reversed the penalty imposed by the 3rd respondent/Assessing Officer, namely, the Commercial Tax Officer vide order dated 15.03.2000.
3. The petitioner had earlier suffered an assessment order at the hands of the 3rd respondent herein/Commercial Tax Officer on 15.03.2000. The 3rd respondent concluded that the claim for exemption towards second sale on the turnover and the corresponding purchases for Rs.8,88,260/- claimed to have been made locally from one Tvl. Aarjay Enterprises was nothing but fictitious and bogus and the bills produced by the petitioner were bogus. Therefore, the 3rd respondent concluded that the purchases were to be treated as having been made from unknown sources and therefore, the second sale exemption claimed by the petitioner was to be disallowed. The order of the 3rd respondent also states that the accounts were called for and checked which revealed the total turnover at Rs.29,38,853.00. The difference between the turnover reported and that as per the accounts 3\6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 13992 of 2007 was not satisfactorily explained. In the months of May, June, and January 99, the reported turnover was more than that shown in the accounts and in some other, lesser than that shown in the accounts.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is erroneous and is liable to be set aside/quashed in this writ petition as the well-reasoned order of the 2nd respondent/Appellate Assistant Commissioner has been erroneously reversed. It is further submitted that a mere report of stoppage of business by the dealer should not be taken as the basis to conclude that the particular dealer's bill was a fictitious one.
5. Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Department, on the other hand, would submit that the order of the Tribunal is well-reasoned and requires no interference. It is further submitted that the Tribunal is the ultimate fact finding authority and therefore, there is no case made out for interfering with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. 4\6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 13992 of 2007
6. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents.
7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made a forceful submission that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was erroneous and therefore, liable to be interfered with, we are of the view that the order of the Appellate Tribunal is well-reasoned and requires no interference. That apart, a revision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is confined to the decision making process and not the decision per se. Moreover, Tvl. Aarjay Enterprises from whom the alleged purchases were said to have been made locally by the petitioner, had stopped their business as early as in February, 1996. The assessment year pertains to 1998-1999. The burden of proof was on the petitioner under Section 10 of TNGST Act, 1959 to establish that the purchase made was, in fact, genuine and the purchase had indeed suffered tax at the time of sales effected to the petitioner. Therefore, before claiming second sale exemption, the petitioner ought to have discharged the burden of proof as is contemplated under 5\6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 13992 of 2007 S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND C. SARAVANAN,J.
nv Section 10 of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In this case, the petitioner has not discharged the burden. We also do not find any perversity in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. We are, therefore, of the view the impugned order of the 1st respondent Tribunal requires no interference.
8. In the light of the above discussion, we are inclined to dismiss the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
(S.V.N.J.) (C.S.N.J.)
nv 20.10.2022
To
1. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner
(CT) II,
VI, Kuralagam Annex, Chennai.
W.P. No. 13992 of 2007
2. The Commercial Tax Officer,
T. Nagar (South) Asst. Circle,
Chennai.
6\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis