https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164776 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. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164776 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. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164776