TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w that purchase turnover of Rs. 14,18,744/-, for the assessment year 2000 2001 and Rs. 27,13,270/-, for the assessment year 2001 2002, had not been properly accounted for, in their purchase accounts. 3. Revision Petitioner has further contended that according to the assessing officer, verification revealed that vehicles had moved from Mannargudi and the vehicles moved to the Container Corporation of India, Tondiarpet, Chennai, were one and the same. But exemptions were claimed. On the above materials, the Assessing Officer, came to the conclusion that the respondent has suppressed inter-state sales and disallowed exemption of Rs. 14,18,744/- and Rs. 27,13,270/-, for the assessment year 2000 2001 and 2001 2001, respectively, and accordingly, determined the taxable turnover. 4. Deputy Commissioner (CT)/Assessing Authority, assessed the respondent, on the alleged suppressed interstate sales of Rs. 14,18,744/-, for the assessment year 2000 2001 and Rs. 27,13,270/- for the assessment year 2001 2002, with equal addition for probable omissions, for the above said assessment years, besides levied penalty under Section 9 (2-A) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, r/w. Section 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of India, Tondaiarpet, Chennai, proved that goods were moved outside the State, thus there is proof of inter-state sale. 11. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the same vehicles, in which the goods were transported from Mannargudi, were used for sending the goods to the Container Corporation of India, Chennai, and therefore, there cannot be any possibility of local sale, as claimed by the assessee. 12. We have heard Mr.P.R.Kumar, learned counsel for the dealer/respondent in both the Tax Case Revision Petitions. 13. Perusal of the order of the Assessing Authority, for the years 2000 2001 and 2001 2002, shows that when the dealer/respondent, claimed exemption of tax of Rs. 14,18,744/- and Rs. 27,13,270/-, for the assessment years 2000 2001 and 2001 2002, respectively, the assessing authority, has found that the dealer/respondent had effected sales to Venkateshwara Traders, Chennai. The Enforcement Wing Officials (Chennai) East, seemed to have visited the place of business premises of Venkateshwara Traders and verified the extract taken from the Container Corporation of India, Tondaiarpet, Chennai. They also verified the accounts of Venkateshwara Traders. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n STA Nos.717 and 756 of 2010, were filed by the revision petitioner, adverting to the pleadings and submissions, the Sales Tax Tribunal, has framed the following points for consideration:- "(i). Whether the disputed turnover could be assessed to tax under Central Sales Tax Act 1956? (ii). Whether any penalty is warranted in this case?" 19. Dealing with the above points for consideration, at paragraph No.10 in the common order STA Nos.717 and 756 of 2010, dated 18/2/2010, the Tribunal held as hereunder:- "10. The dealer had proved by the possible evidence in their such as invoices raised in favour of the purchasers viz., Sree Venkateswara Traders, Chennai and the lorry receipts and permit obtained from the Thanjavur Marketing Committee, etc. Hence, the assessee had amply established that they had effected local sales only. But the assessing Officer had completely relied upon the report of the Enforcement Wing Officers, who in turn totally accepted the statement of the purchaser of the dealer, viz., Sree Venkateswara Traders in Chennai to the effect that they did not purchase the disputed consignments from the dealer. At the same time, the said Enforcement Wing Officers as al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (CT), Tanjore, and the Tribunal, on the substantial questions of law, stated supra, going through the material on record, we are of the view that both the authorities, have threadbare analysed the evidence on record, and arrived at a proper conclusion that when the assessee had produced necessary documents, such as invoices, lorry receipts, ledger extracts and sales and payment details, in support of the transactions effected by them, there is no reason to reject the same and the assessing officer has relied on the statement of the buyer, whose cross-examination had been denied, by the assessing officer. 21. Veracity of the statement of the buyer can be ascertained, only on cross-examination. Though there was an allegation of inter-state sale, the buyer had denied the same. Material on record discloses that even the assessing Officer had recorded that, it was the buyer, who had not accounted for, the eight transactions. Merely because there was movement of lorries from the place of the dealer/vendor/assessee, from Mannargudi to Container Corporation of India, Tondiarpet, no conclusion cannot be reached that, it was the vendor/dealer, who has effected inter-state sales and thus, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Encyclopedic Edition) PERVERSE: Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, Fourth Edition PERVERSE: A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. 24. In Kuldeep Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police & Others, reported in {(1999) 2 SCC 10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as follows:- "A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with." 25. In State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjeev reported in 2005 (5) SCC 181 = AIR 2005 SC 2080, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus, ".......to characterize a decision of the administ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against the assessment. While it was open to the respondent to have raised and for the High Court to have considered whether the denial of relief under the proviso to Section 39(5) was proper or not, it was not open to the High Court re-appreciate the primary or perceptive facts which were otherwise within the domain of the fact-finding authority under the statute. The question whether the transactions were or were not sales exigible to sales tax constituted an exercise in recording secondary or inferential facts based on primary facts found by the statutory authorities. But what was assailed in review was, in substance, the correctness - as distinguished from the legal permissibility - of the primary or perceptive facts themselves. It is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law." 28. In The General Manager (P) Punjab & Sind Bank v. Daya Singh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 233, at Paragraph 24, the Hon....