TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst respondent in CTSA No.211 of 2003, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. 2.The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is a dealer in groundnut and groundnut kernal, besides doing decordication work. They are assessee on the file of the second respondent. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessing officer assessed the petitioner on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 46,80,870/- and Rs. 8,15,050/- under section 12(1)(a) of the TNGST Act. Subsequently, on 29.06.1999, the business place of the petitioner was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officials, during the course of which, it was found that there was stock difference in respect of groundnut and groundnut kernal; an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axable at the point of first purchase and having accepted and confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority in respect of deletion of stock difference estimation of Rs. 62,000/-, ought not to have restored the estimated sales turnover of groundnut kernal of Rs. 7,63,000/- which has been estimated on the purchase value of groundnut. It is also submitted that once the turnover, which was found at the time of inspection, has been brought to account, the restoration of equal addition made by the first respondent is arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of the Act. Similarly, the levy of penalty under section 16(2) of the TNGST Act, would not be attracted against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to allow the writ pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that was taken for assessment. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the deletion of the turnover of Rs. 7,63,500/- by the appellate authority is wrong and the assessment made by the assessing officer on the turnover of Rs. 7,63,500/- is restored. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is extracted below: "As seen from the returns that had been filed, it is seen that the dealer had not reported the turnover in the month of July and paid the tax due thereon and it had also been reflected in the accounts. Further more the dealer had filed a statement while producing the accounts for self-assessment and the turnover of Rs. 17,29,750/- was shown as the purchases of groundnut and it had filed at page 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner's statement that the dealer had disclosed the turnover in the return for the month of July and paid taxes is against the facts of the case. The suppression that was noticed under D7 slips amounted to Rs. 7,63,500/-. There is no explanation for the above said turnover from the dealer which ought to have been gone into by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and he ought to have verified the records to come to a conclusion. When the dealer had clearly filed a statement of purchases which had been filed at 101 of the asst file, how the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had come to a conclusion that the transaction had been accounted for in the accounts and the tax had been paid and there is also no correlation between the suppression t....