TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, a finding of wilful non-disclosure is necessary? (ii) Whether, when the petitioners had completely disclosed their turnover pertaining to the transaction with Alsa, but only claimed deduction, the petitioners could be stated to have not disclosed their turnover within the meaning of Section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax At, 1959?" 2. The assessment years under consideration are 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively. The petitioner is a company engaged in the hire purchase and leasing. During the assessment years under consideration, the petitioner herein leased out centering sheets to M/s. Also Investments Limited. In respect of all lease transactions, originally, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....garding the lessee having the sole responsibility for taking delivery and possession of the equipment leased in the agreement, the responsibility of packing, loading, incurring freight, transporting the goods, lease and unloading the same at the premises of the lessee. Except for stating that the ownership vested with the assessee herein, the lease agreement clearly imposes various obligations, which pointed out that the petitioner would never directly or indirectly interact with the seller identified by the lessee. The delivery challans were handed over to the assessee by the representative of the lessee and the sale invoice would be raised on the assessee by the seller. The covering letters addressed to the suppliers mentioned the name of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Except for mere statement that, but for the inspection by the Enforcement Wing Officials the transaction would not have come to light, admittedly, there are no findings as regards wilful non-disclosure. Aggrieved by this assessment, the assessee went on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who confirmed the revision of assessment, including the penalty. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that while the Tribunal confirmed the quantum in the appeal, on the question of levy of penalty, it however pointed out that the assessee had paid the tax voluntarily. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pose of levy of penalty under Section 16(2), the mere use of the expression "suppression" in the order is not enough. This Court pointed out that a wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover is a necessary ingredient to make out that part of the section, namely, a deliberate intention to suppress an assessable turnover, which should, in fact, have existed. It is not possible to say, merely from the fact that there has been a reassessment of escaped turnover on the basis of best judgment, that there has been a wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover. There must be something to indicate that the turnover did in fact exist and that the assessee had wilfully not disclosed that assessable turnover. 6. Per contra, learned Special....