TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds Tribunal's assessment order, rejects petition alleging tax evasion</h1> <h3>Thiru Murugan Company Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) III, The State of Tamil Nadu, The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Main Bench</h3> Thiru Murugan Company Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) III, The State of Tamil Nadu, The Sales Tax ... Issues:Assessment order challenge - Restoration of assessment order by Tribunal - Genuine sale of raw skins - Tax levy on stock variation.Analysis:Assessment Order Challenge:The petitioner, a dealer in hides and skins, challenged the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A No.618 of 2002. The petitioner reported a total and taxable turnover for the assessment year 1992-93. An inspection revealed defects, leading to a best judgment assessment by the assessing officer. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter to the assessing authority. The Tribunal later restored the assessment order, which was challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.Genuine Sale of Raw Skins:The Tribunal found that the petitioner's claim of selling raw hides and skins to 7 registered dealers was not genuine. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner retained ownership of the raw hides and skins, indicating a modus operandi to evade tax. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's explanation regarding the alleged sale, leading to the restoration of the assessment order by the assessing authority.Tax Levy on Stock Variation:Regarding the turnover related to stock variation, the petitioner explained that they reported excess stock to the bank for credit facilities. However, the Tribunal deemed this explanation unsupported by records and cited precedent to reject it. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the assessment order and penalty, setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.Court's Decision:The Court noted that the issues raised were primarily questions of fact rather than law. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority, and interference is warranted only in cases of perversity in findings. Citing legal precedents, the Court highlighted that appellate intervention occurs when a judgment is proven wrong, not merely when it is deemed incorrect. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit, without costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
TaxTMI 