TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Tax Act, 2006 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the common order dated 07.1.2019 made respectively in STA.Nos.211, 212, 214, 213 and 215 of 2015 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Main Bench, Chennai, ('the Tribunal' for brevity). 2. The assessee has filed these revisions by raising the following substantial questions of law: "Common questions in TCR.Nos.11 to 14 of 2020 : i. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in reversing the order of the First Appellate Authority by applying Section 63 without considering the facts of the case when the Explanation appended to the said Section directly applies to the facts of the case ? ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for reconsideration? viii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in reversing the order of the First Appellate Authority and sustaining penalty under Section 27(3) of the Act on the turnover of equal time addition when the turnover itself is not liable to tax ? And ix. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in sustaining the penalty levied under Section 27(3) when the assessment order is passed under Section 22 of the Act?" 3. We have heard Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/assessee and Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/Department. 4. These revisions have been filed by the registered dealer under the provisions of the Act challen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ote of the Explanation to Section 63 of the Act, which states that nothing in this Section shall apply to accounts, which are built up from the initial accounts. Therefore, the Statute did not contemplate a complete embargo on the First Appellate Authority from admitting documents at the appellate stage. This issue was considered in several decisions as to how the matter has to be dealt with by the Appellate Authority and we may refer to the following decisions to support the view that the First Appellate Authority did have jurisdiction to admit documents. 7. In this regard, it would be beneficial to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of DCCT, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore Vs. New Ajantha Wines [reported in (1979) 44 STC 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it did functionally was only to adjust the assessment of the appellant in accordance with the facts on the record and in accordance with the law laid down by the Legislature, that an appeal was a continuation of the process of assessment and an assessment was but another name for adjustment of the tax liability to accord with the taxable event in the particular tax-payer's case and that there could be no analogy or parallel between a tax appeal and an appeal, say, in civil cases. 10. In the light of the above decisions, we have to necessarily hold that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the documents could not be taken into consideration at the appellate stage is unsustainable. On facts, we find that the documents were not adm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellate Authority referred to Section 27(2) of the Act and held that the levy of penalty was provided under the said provision on the actual availing of input tax more than admissible input tax and found that the petitioner - assessee reversed the input tax, which was availed owing to Section 19(20) of the Act much before finalization of the assessment. Therefore, the First Appellate Authority held that there was no excess availing of input tax and also reversal of input tax was not detected and not based on any suppression of fact or bogus claim. Ultimately, the penalty levied under Section 27(3)/27(4) of the Act was set aside. 14. The Tribunal did not assign any reasons as to why the finding written by the First Appellate Authority....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nto force with effect from 19.8.2010, has fallen in the middle of the assessment year, which commenced from 01.4.2010. This aspect should have been noted by the Assessing Officer. But, there was no reference to the same nor the Revenue raised any issue with regard to that before the Tribunal. 17. In any event, we are convinced with the finding rendered by the First Appellate Authority deleting penalty, which was levied under Section 27(4) of the Act and the said finding is upheld. In so far as the levy of penalty under Section 27(3) of the Act is concerned, we have upheld the finding of the First Appellate Authority that the receipts did not relate to any sale and hence, the question of levy of penalty under Section 27(3) of the Act c....