Sales suppression cannot rest on seized stock later returned and accounted for, but unexplained excess stock may still attract purchase omission tax.

Seized gold jewellery that was returned only in a subsequent year and duly accounted for then could not, without further evidence, justify a finding of sales suppression for the earlier assessment year. The court nevertheless upheld the purchase omission finding and the addition under section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, because the materials did not establish actual approval-basis supply and the assessee failed to explain the excess stock. Penalty based on sales suppression could not survive, but it remained sustainable to the extent attributable to the upheld purchase omission, requiring redetermination accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the levy of tax on alleged sales turnover for the assessment year 1996-97 could be sustained when the seized gold jewellery was returned only in the subsequent year and was accounted for then; (ii) Whether the finding of purchase omission and the levy under section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be sustained on the basis of the available materials; (iii) Whether the penalty could survive in full when the sales suppression was found unsustainable but purchase omission was upheld.

Issue (i): Whether the levy of tax on alleged sales turnover for the assessment year 1996-97 could be sustained when the seized gold jewellery was returned only in the subsequent year and was accounted for then.

Analysis: The record showed that the gold jewellery was seized on 30 January 1997 and returned only on 17 March 1998. The assessee had consistently stated this fact before the authorities, and the accounts for the later assessment year showed due disclosure and payment of tax. In those circumstances, there was no basis to infer that sales could have been effected from the seized stock during the assessment year 1996-97. The reversal of the first appellate finding on sales suppression was therefore unsupported.

Conclusion: The levy based on alleged sales suppression for the assessment year 1996-97 was not sustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding of purchase omission and the levy under section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be sustained on the basis of the available materials.

Analysis: The statements of the concerned jewellers did not establish that the goods in question had actually been supplied to the assessee on approval basis. A mere statement that goods were generally supplied on approval could not prove actual supply in respect of the disputed stock. The reduction made by the first appellate authority lacked factual support, and the materials justified the view that the assessee had not explained the source of the excess stock. The assessment under section 7A was therefore properly restored.

Conclusion: The finding of purchase omission and the consequential levy under section 7A were upheld and were against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty could survive in full when the sales suppression was found unsustainable but purchase omission was upheld.

Analysis: Since the sales suppression finding did not survive, the penalty could not be sustained on that basis. At the same time, the penalty remained supportable to the extent attributable to the purchase omission that was upheld. The penalty therefore required redetermination in line with the limited surviving addition.

Conclusion: The penalty was sustained only to the extent relatable to purchase omission and was in part in favour of the assessee and in part in favour of the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The decision granted relief on the alleged sales suppression, upheld the purchase omission and section 7A addition, and confined the penalty to the extent of the surviving purchase-related finding.

Ratio Decidendi: Seized stock returned and accounted for in a subsequent assessment year cannot, without more, sustain a finding of sales suppression for the earlier year, but an unexplained excess stock may still justify a purchase omission addition and restricted penalty.

---