TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 15.06.2015. 2. This Tax Case Revision has been admitted on 04.11.2015 on the following substantial questions of law. "(i) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, there is any jurisdiction to infer estimation of an inter-State sale under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In the absence of any evidence of movement against a particular order or direction? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 16(2) of the Act is justified?" 3. We have heard Mr.K.Narayanan for Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Hari Babu, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 4. The case on hand has a chequered history which pertains ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellate Authority which was allowed by order dated 07.12.2007. The respondent/state filed appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore. The said appeal was allowed by the impugned order. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the order and direction issued by the First Appellate Authority in its order dated 30.11.2004, in appeal No. CST 59 of 2004. It would be useful to refer to the findings rendered by the First Appellate Authority as to why he came to the conclusion that the matter has to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for cross examining the owners of the lorry booking offices. "10....... As such there had been no assessable inter-state sales turnover in existence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the owners of the lorry booking office but they did not turn up for being subjected to examination and subsequently for cross examination by the petitioner/dealer. Unfortunately, the Assessing Officer failed to understand the basic legal concept as to how adverse inference could be drawn. 7. To be noted that the assessment has been reopened by the Assessing Officer suspecting that transactions were not accounted for. Though, there was suspicion in respect of 338 transactions, only 9 transactions fell under a cloud as petitioner was able to establish their genuineness in respect of 329 transactions. Thus, if the Department is of the view that transactions were doubtful, it is they who have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on record to show that the appellants have actually received any sale proceeds from out of state buyers. It can be very well seen that the names and addresses of the ultimate buyers at outside the State is not at all found in the records recovered. Further, the names of the goods, quantity, value etc., are not at all found recorded in the extract recovered from the lorry shed. Thus, it is clear that orders passed by the assessing officer is purely a surmise and not based on any evidence on record to prove the contentions that the appellants have actually effected interstate sales of goods. Finally, it can be seen that the directions of Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Salem in his remand order and without conducting any cross examinat....