TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order, dated 12.06.2002 made in Appeal Nos.58 and 103 of 1998. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- In respect of the respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Central-II Assessment Circle, Tiruppur in his assessment order in TNGST No.2461525/95-96, dated 11.07.1996 determined a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 4,82,375/- against the reported total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,18,525/-. 3. Aggrieved against the said order of the Assessing Officer, the respondent herein preferred first Appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Pollachi, who in turn modified the order of the Assessing Officer by following the decision reported in 3 MTCR 83 in the case of "State of Tamil Nadu ..vs.. Gomraj Metal Works....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be set aside, the question of levy of penalty does not arise at all. 5. Aggrieved against the order of the second Appellate Authority, the State is before this Court and the following grounds were raised by the State:- (i) The Tribunal failed to note that for the stock difference noticed at the time of inspection conducted on 26.12.1995, the dealers had given statement that they have no remarks to offer and therefore, the suppressions were in fact in existence as contended by the dealers. (ii) The Tribunal failed to note that the bought note vouchers bearing Nos.1,2,3,4,5 & 6 dated 26.12.1995 were prepared only subsequent to inspection and entries for the same were made in stock register at pages 20-21 and those reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... maintained, all the goods in the business premises relating to their sister concerns were kept and get mingled with each other and the daybook was not maintained/written properly after 22.12.1995 till the date of inspection and there was a physical and book stock comparison and variation was found and accordingly, stock of ghee as per the stock book was 7500 Kg and at the time of inspection, the actual stock of 8402 Kg was found and hence, there was excess stock of 902 Kg found in ghee. There was purchase omissions and the dealer has purchased butter through bought notes and converted it as ghee. The appellant contended that excess stock revealed purchase suppression of facts. Hence, the respondent is liable under Section 7A and due to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessment Circle, Tiruppur in his Assessment Order TNGST No.2461525/95-96 dated 11.07.1996, in respect of M/s.Parvathi Trading Company has determined total and taxable turnover of Rs. 4,82,375/- against the reported total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,18,525/- and in respect of M/s.Sekaran Trading Company, they have determined the total and taxable turnover as Rs. 5,10,030/- and Rs. 64,640/- against the reported total and taxable turnover Rs. 4,45,370/- and Nil respectively. 12. Aggrieved by the orders of the first Appellate Authority, the appellant preferred Second Appeals before the Tribunal disputing the turnovers, as hereunder:- i) CTA 58/98 (1995-96) - Tvl.M.Parvathi Trading Company, Tiruppur . i. Ghee (+) 902 Kgs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als only due to mingling up of stocks of the respondent and their sister concerns together and the difference noticed. at the time of inspection, has been subsequently brought to the books of accounts and the discrepancies should be cancelled. 16. The respondent would submit that in similar cases, subsequent accounting was accepted and this Hon'ble Court in the case of "State of Tamil Nadu .v. Gomraj Metal Works" reported in 3 MTCR 83, held that the estimation for actual suppression does not arise if the variation is subsequently accounted for. 17. As per the circular, the respondent would submit that, it is not correct to estimate probable purchases of butter on the basis of the stock discrepancies found at the time of inspection....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....That apart, it is also found that the above discrepancies is only due to mingling up of material goods of the respondent with that of their sister concerns, which is also duly pointed out by the Inspection officer at the time of inspection and at the later point of time, the appellant cannot raise the issue and the respondent have also produced bought notes, stock register etc., for substantiating the same and convincing that the alleged stock discrepancy so arrived at was due to the prescribed stock kept together for certain processes as their sister concerns and the respondent were functioning at the same place of business. The matter was considered by the Tribunal and they were convinced and found that there was no stock discrepancy. ....