TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by the State. 2. Heard Mr.K.A.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.Anita Sumanth, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 3. On 15.09.1999, there was an inspection of the factory premises of the revision petitioner, by the officials of the Enforcement Wing of the Commercial Taxes Department of the State of Tamil Nadu. In the course of inspection, the Enforcement Wing sought the particulars relating to (1) sales turn over of aluminium alloy castings and finished goods; (2) Opening stock and closing stock and (3) consumption of raw materials, relating to the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. Unfortunately, the employees of the revision petitioner furnished three differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer issued notices, proposing to revise the assessment and to re-determine the total and taxable turn over, for four assessment years viz., 1994-95 to 1997-98. After giving an opportunity to the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed four different orders of revised assessment, three of which were on 28.03.2002 and one on 04.04.2002. Penalty was also imposed upon the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the revised orders of assessment, the assessee filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in A.P.Nos.51, 52, 53 and 54 of 2002. These appeals were allowed by the Appellate Authority by separate orders passed on the same date viz., 17.10.2003. 6. However, the said order of the first Appellate Authority was reversed by the Tamil Nadu Sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14.09.2000, the assessing officer chose to arrive at the presumption of suppression of turn over, based upon the production figure furnished on the first date 23.03.2000. The contention of the revision petitioner/assessee is that once the Assessing Officer chooses to go by the figures furnished on the last date 14.09.2000, it is not open to him to take the figures relating to production alone, from what was furnished on 23.03.2000. 10. The second contention of Mr.K.A.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee, is that the Tribunal, in order to sustain the orders of Assessing Officer, took the balance sheet of the assessee company, made an independent verification of the facts and figures found therein and came to the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the second grievance relating to the perversity of findings is concerned, it is necessary to take note of the grounds with which the petitioner has gone before the Tribunal seeking rectification. A perusal of the petitions for rectification would show that the rectification is sought by the petitioner on three issues. These three issues are indicated in paragraphs 5(a), 5(b), and 5(c). The inference that the revision petitioner wants the Tribunal to make out of those three points, are indicated in sub- paragraphs (d), (e), (f) and (g) of paragraph 5 of their rectification petitions. 13. Therefore, it is necessary to see the mistakes that the petitioner seeks to get rectified before the Tribunal. Sub paragraphs (a) to (c) of paragraph 5 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the revision petitioner should in all fairness pursue the rectification petitions and get verdict on the same. 15. It is contended by Mr.K.A.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Tribunal may either reject the rectification petitions or sustain the same findings even after rectifying the mistakes. 16. Assuming that the Tribunal rejects the petitions for rectification, it is not as though the petitioner is without a remedy. Assuming that the Tribunal allows the rectification petitions, but sustains the findings, even then, the doors are not shut for the assessee. If the rectification petitions are allowed, but the ultimate conclusion is sustained, the reasoning and the conclusion may not go in tandem. ....