High Court rules assessee liable for sales tax only on amount collected for central excise duty component.

The High Court allowed the tax case revisions, ruling that the assessee is liable to pay sales tax only on the amount collected towards the central excise duty component from the other party. The court directed the Assessing Officer to reassess accordingly. It was held that the Assessing Officer lacked sufficient evidence to support the claim of turnover suppression, and the best judgment assessment was deemed unjustified. The court answered the substantial legal question in favor of the assessee without imposing any costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal committed an error in confirming the demand of sales tax on the full value indicated in the Central Excise invoices.
2. Whether the transaction between the assessee and TAC qualifies as a sale under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
3. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking Section 12A of the Act for best judgment assessment.
4. Whether the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to conclude that there was suppression of turnover by the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal committed an error in confirming the demand of sales tax on the full value indicated in the Central Excise invoices:
The petitioner (assessee) challenged the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's common order, which confirmed the demand of sales tax on the full value indicated in the Central Excise invoices raised on TAC. The assessee argued that they only collected the central excise duty component and not the full invoice value. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeals, leading to the present revisions before the High Court.

2. Whether the transaction between the assessee and TAC qualifies as a sale under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959:
The court examined the definitions of "sale" and "turnover" under Sections 2(n) and 2(r) of the Act. The agreement between the assessee and TAC indicated that CO2 was supplied free of cost, with only excise duty and sales tax being collected. Despite the assessee's contention that there was no sale, the court held that the transaction qualified as a sale since there was a transfer of property in goods for consideration, albeit the consideration was for excise duty.

3. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking Section 12A of the Act for best judgment assessment:
The court analyzed whether the prerequisites for invoking Section 12A were met. Section 12A allows for best judgment assessment if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the dealer has shown sales at abnormally low prices to evade tax. The court found no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer that the accounts were unreliable or that there was suppression of turnover. The Assessing Officer's reliance on suspicion and conjecture without concrete evidence was deemed insufficient for invoking Section 12A.

4. Whether the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to conclude that there was suppression of turnover by the assessee:
The court noted that the Assessing Officer did not have material evidence to disbelieve the records produced by the assessee, which included financials of TAC, affidavits, and annual reports. The court emphasized that mere suspicion does not amount to proof, and the charge of suppression requires strict evidence. The Assessing Officer's failure to record satisfaction and reliance on suspicion led the court to conclude that the best judgment assessment was not justified.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the tax case revisions, holding that the assessee is liable to pay sales tax only on the amount collected towards the central excise duty component from TAC. The Assessing Officer was directed to redo the assessment in accordance with this direction. The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee, and no costs were imposed.

---