TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods were assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 9,39,65,027/- and Rs. 9,38,64,448/- respectively for the year 2009-10 under Section 22 of the VAT Act by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Park Town I, Assessment Circle, Chennai by proceedings dated 15.10.2010. Further verification of the assessment records revealed that their place of business was inspected by the Enforcement wing officers from 17.07.2010 to 20.07.2010 and the officials noticed that a turnover of Rs. 3,06,000/- relating to sale of Hyundai car was not reported and tax not paid alongwith returns. They also noticed stock variation to the tune of Rs. 1,85,200/- and by adding GP at 7% sales suppression was arrived at Rs. 1,98,164/- taxable at 12.5%. They also found tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interstate sales without C form were made out of corresponding interstate purchases in the absence of verification of relevant records? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty levied both under Section 27(4) and 27(3) of the Act when the dealer had wrongly claimed ITC? 6. On the above substantial questions of law, Mr.V.Haribabu, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has erred in law in observing that surgical items purchased form interstate were not the items purchased locally and also failed to consider that as pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chases and they have not availed any ITC for these sales. The Assessing Officer after verifying their claim with reference to bills furnished has observed that the interstate sales were effected from both inter and interstate purchases; hence he overruled the objections and confirmed the reversals proposed along with penalty for both years. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner has set aside the reversal as well as penalty by accepting the contention of the dealers based on sale bills furnished before him. The contention of the state is that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has given his findings without verifying the primary evidence of stock book and without taking into consideration the local purchase of similar goods. Before this Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....absence of willfulness, there is no error in the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) in deleting penalty under Section 27(3) pertaining to stock difference. Similarly the penalty on the sale of asset modified by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) was also correct one as per the provisions of the Act since as a result of first appeal order, the tax due on suppressed turnover confirm is less than 10% of tax paid as per returns. In view of these facts, the orders of Appellate Deputy Commissioner with regard to penalty under Section 27(3) are also confirmed by this Tribunal." 12. Though, Mr.V.Haribabu, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the correctness of the findings on the grounds stated supra, from the material on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idence or surmises or conjectures and therefore, it was not open to the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the Special Court which were based on sound consideration of the materials on record." 16. In Arulvelu v. State reported in 2009 (10) SCC 206, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 29, explained what "perverse" means, "29. In Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10, the Court while dealing with the scope of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution observed as under: "9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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." 17. In The General Manager (P) Punjab & Sind Bank v. Daya Singh reported in ....