TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n aluminium vessels in Karaikudi and the assessment in this case relates to the assessment year 1991-92. It is seen that the place of business of the assessee was inspected on 04.10.1991, wherein the Department has found variation in the stock of Aluminium vessels, Aluminium circles, Aluminium waste and factory waste and bisuru. The Inspecting Officials also recovered four slips containing entries of business transactions. In the course of the assessment, the Assessing Officer found suppression of sales, which is relatable to slip No.3 recovered at the time of inspection among other slips, namely, 1, 2 and 4. Hence, the assessee was assessed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 16,48,948/- and Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f does not show suppression of sales, therefore, such a finding should not be overturned by the Joint Commissioner in the suo motu proceedings. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 7. It is not in dispute and not contested by the appellant the suppression of sales turnover in respect of slip Nos.1, 2 and 4 on the equivalent purchase in terms of Section 7A, which has been affirmed by the first Appellate Authority. 8. The core issue is whether the suppression of sales under Slip No.3 to the tune of Rs. 1,92,772.85 should be deleted or not. The Original Authority went by the statement of the partner T.Sathiamoorthy, who after the date of inspection, had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Challenging the said order. 9. On these facts, we find that the Joint Commissioner in the suo motu proceedings has given some reasons which we would like to point out for better clarity on this issue. Primarily, the plea of the assessee/partner that he was suffering from nervous disability during the time of inspection and therefore he had not given a correct statement was rejected by the revisional authority on the following grounds: i) from the date of inspection to the date of statement i.e., on 26.6.1992, even after receipt of the recorded statement, there was no rebuttal by the assessee that he was suffering from ill health and the statement recorded was not correct; ii) the plea of the assessee that he was not aware of the busin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Authorised Representative that such a statement could not be accepted are not at all acceptable." (emphasis supplied) 10. Insofar as Slip No.3 is concerned, the Revisional Authority once again verified the document and has given a finding as follows: "I also perused the slip no.3 available at page 127 of the assessment file. From the nature of calculations made, it would be evident that they amounted only to the working of price, tax, surcharge etc., for example, in the front page, the following entry is found:- 104.00 10.40 1.50 ------- 115.96 ------- 10.40 with reference to 104 should be relatable to 10% of the tax and 1.56 obviously at 15% is surcharge on the tax of 10.40. Therefore, the figure of 115.96 wo....