TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Pleader (Taxes), appearing for the respondent. 2. In both these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order of assessment for the years 1989-1999 and 1999-2000 under the provisions of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act (in short TNGST Act, 1959). 3. Though several contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it may not be necessary to deal with all such contentions at this juncture. Since, this Court is satisfied that the order of assessment has been passed in utter disregard with the direction issued by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Kancheepuram, in his order dated 31.05.2001. The said appeal arose out of a order of assessment for the assessment year 1998- 1999. The appeal filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of the appellant, the appellant have not charged MRP as the price of the goods. Therefore, it is manifest evident that they have charged the basic price as sale price and not MRP. The Assessing Officer does not possess only evidence of record to show that they have charged MRP as sale price. I find from the records that the Assessing Officer has treated the difference turnover between the 60% of MRP and the value charged as sale price in the invoices raised by them as amount received toward the sale of Vaccum Cleaner without any evidences whatsoever to hold so. Moreover the turnover brought to taxation were factually not with reference to any records maintained by them. However, before coming to the above irresistible conclusion, a t....