TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeals in C.T.A.No.192/99, C.T.A.No.191/99 in respect of the Assessment Years 1992-93 & 1993-94 respectively and modified C.T.A.No.157/98 in respect of the Assessment Year 1995-1996. 3. By the impugned common order dated 29.05.2003, the Tribunal allowed three appeals filed by the first respondent against three orders of the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore [hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Commissioner"]. Details of the appeals are as under:- W.P.No. A.Y. Appeal No. & Date before Tri. Appeal No. & Date before Appte. Com. Asst. Order No. & Date before the Assessing Officer 3039/06 92-93 C.T.A.No.192/99 (29.05.2003) C.S.T.No.117/97 (27.01.1999) C.S.T. Rev. Asst. Order No.576386/92-93 (21.04.1997) 13029/06 95-96 C.T.A.No.157/99 (29.05.2003) C.S.T.No.169/97 (08.12.1997) C.S.T. Asst. Order No.679075/95-96 (16.06.1997) 12886/06 93-94 C.T.A.No.191/99 (29.05.2003) C.S.T.No.118/97 (27.01.1999) C.S.T. Rev. Asst. Order No.576386/93-94 (21.04.1997) Note: (i) W.P.No.13029 of 2006 was de-linked when this Case was reserved on 02.12.2022. (ii) W.P.No.12886 of 2006 was disposed of on 28.04.2006. 4. The dispute in this Writ Petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... explanation in respect of recovered records on 17.10.1995, 03.01.1996, 12.07.1996, 30.07.1996 & 12.08.1996. It appears that the aurthorized representative of the first respondent appeared before the Assessing Officer on 20.08.1996 and furnished explanations. 9. Thereafter, a pre-assessment notice dated 13.02.1997 was issued to the first respondent, wherein, a sum of Rs.9,00,048/- and Rs.13,50,072/- were proposed towards tax and penalty respectively. It appears that though objections were called for from the first respondent in respect of the above proposals, the first respondent was only requesting time by sending letters, but, not file any objection. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed a revision assessment order dated 21.04.1997 and confirmed the proposals in the pre-assessment notice dated 13.02.1997. Operative portion of the revision assessment order dated 21.04.1997 reads as under:- To a Notice issued calling for objection if any to the above proposals, the dealers have requested time for 15 days in their letter dated 26.02.97 and the time allowed for filling objections. Further they have requested the copy of documents relied upon for filling their objection, in their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich State is the tax leviable, one must look to and apply the text of section 9(1) of CST Acct. No other provision is relevant on this question. Section 9(1) of the CST Act stipulates that tax should be levied by the State, in which State the movement of goods commenced. Therefore, according to section 9(1) of CST Act the movement of goods commenced only in the State of Tamil Nadu. I, therefore, find that the Assessing Authority has properly fixed the liability to tax under section 3(a) of CST Act in both these cases. The applicants plea in this record is dismissed. VIII) Regarding levy of penalty under section 9(2) of CST Act, read with section 12(3)(b) of TNGST Act, I find that these are the cases relating to revision of assessment under section 16(1). The Assessing Authority ought to have examined levy of penalty under section 16(2) instead of section 12(3)(b). The statutory ingredients to impose penalty under section 16(2) are in different plan and requirements than that of the amended provisions of section 12(3)(b) of TNGST Act. Therefore the initiation of action and imposition of penalty by the Assessing Authority under section 9(2) read with section 12(3)(b) of TNGST Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing discussion and on the basis of the documents evidences, it would clearly establish that the sale was effected through the depots in other State and could not be held as interstate sales as there was no conceivable link in the movement of the goods from the Principal to the depot and therefore the sales effected through the depots outside the State cannot be treated as interstate sales u/s.3(a) of the CST Act. The inter-state sale has to be proved not by way of general observation and surmises but with reference to specific movement as to whether they were sent in pursuant to a specific contract of sale or not. Therefore, on the basis of the verification of the documents and on the basis of the invariable principles of law wetted by the higher judicial forums cited above, we are of the view that the authorities below have not come to the correct conclusion in deciding the issue and in fact erred in treating the branch transfer as inter-state sale. Following these principles, we have no hesitation in holding that the revision of assessments has been wrongly made in respect of the sale effected through the depots in other state and hence the orders passed by the first appellate au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring 1992-1993. 21. It is submitted that the first appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), in A.P.No.CST/117/1997, was wrongly dismissed by order dated 27.10.1999, uploading the revision made on 21.04.1997. It is therefore submitted the order dated 27.10.1999, of the Appellate Commissioner has been rightly interfered by the Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order dated 29.05.2003. 22. It is submitted that there were no records for recovery of any documents infer any irregularity during 1992-1993 and during 1993-1994. 23. In this connection, a reference is made to the following decisions: i. The State of Tamil Nadu vs. Kalpana Lamp Components (Pvt) Ltd., TC.No.548 & 549 of 1985; ii. The State of Tamil Nadu vs. M.P.Iron and Steel India Limited, W.P.No.12507 of 2001; iii. SGS Petro Organic (P) Ltd. vs. The CTO, Ayyanavaram Assessment Circle, Chennai, W.P.No.9461 & 11040 of 2004; iv. Vijay Spinners vs. Joint Commissioner (CTIII( SMR)), Chennai, [2021] 92 GSTR407(Mad); 24. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the State(Writ Petitioner) and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 25. The Tribunal is the ultimate fact find....