2009 (12) TMI 897

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sments for the years 1999-2000 and 2002-03. The assessments were finalised. Subsequently under section 16 of the TNGST Act, the assessment was made as per revised proceedings. Subsequently by suo motu revision, a revised assessment was made on November 28, 2003 based on a third party statement. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in O.P. Nos. 115 to 120 of 2004 on the ground that the statement of third parties were not furnished and the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses. On that short point the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal by an order dated February 16, 2004 was pleased to quash the revised assessment dated November 28, 2003 by giving following ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, submitted that once assessment order is set aside and opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were relied upon for the purpose of making revised assessment, the respondent is duty-bound to check the accounts once again and make an order conjointly with the statement of the third parties. In nutshell he submitted that the assessment could be made only after appreciation of evidences in toto and the statement alone cannot be the criteria to make a revised assessment order. He also referred rule 10 and rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 which speaks about the best judgment of the authority, namely, the assessment officer before passing the assessment order. He relied upon ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the declaration of low gross profit or trade loss is not a sufficient reason to infer suppression, particularly where no finding of inflated purchase or suppressed sale has been made. The quantity of the material purchased and utilised was capable of verification and should have been so verified. The assessing authority did not record any finding to the effect that the assessee had made any wrong classification of the taxable sales under the exemption sales. There is nothing on record to show that the transactions of sale were not vouched for. In the assessment year, no purchase omission has at all been pointed out. As a matter of fact, no finding has been recorded by the assessing authority to the effect that the return filed by the asses....