2024 (8) TMI 707

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellate Assistant Commissioner is correct? iii. Whether the levy of penalty of Rs. 85,133/- by the Assessing Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is correct? 2. The impugned order confirms an assessment made for the period 1995-96 under provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short 'TNGST Act'). The submissions of the petitioner and the respondent/Commercial Taxes Department on each of the issues are set out below in seriatim, with our findings and conclusions. 3. First Issue. The petitioner had claimed to have effected purchases of hosiery yarn for an amount of Rs. 5,80,905/-. It had however been unable to produce purchase bills and, before the authorities, had averred that the sales had been from a local registered dealer by name Park-in-Mills, Tiruppur. In the absence of sales bills, there was a proposal by the assessing officer to reject the turnover and levy purchase tax in terms of Section 7A of the TNGST Act. 4. In appeal, the petitioner had filed an affidavit that Park-in-Mills had confirmed the factum of purchase. Since the affidavit had been filed for the first time before the Appellate Assistant Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orities to the effect that their said sales had passed through the regular books of accounts and that the supporting purchases had also suffered tax on earlier stages, in accordance with the provisions of Sec.10 of the Act, the burden of proving that any dealer or any of his transactions is not liable to tax under the Act shall lie on such dealer. Hence I overrule the objection filed and the levy of tax is confirmed. Order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated 11.09.2000: '. . the purchase details produced reveals the purchases made for Rs. 3,73,000/- only. Moreover, the description of commodity is not elaborate. These sale bills are dated 20.12.1995, 27.12.95 and 5.1.96. However, the Park-in- Mills had supplied 42 bags of 30s yarn on 6.11.95 itself to the appellants. It is obvious from the above that the purchase bills produced have no relationship with the delivery of the yarn made to the appellants. Moreover, the delivery notes contain certain yarn delivery purchased from Salem Textiles on 6.11.95, 21 bags has also been mentioned. In the delivery note dt. 6.11.95 only 21 bags has been supplied ........ According to Rule 26 any dealer who sells good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hase took place after, and was for the purpose of complying with, the agreement or order for or in relation to such export. 14. One of the statutory pre-conditions for claim of exemption under Section 5(3) is the nexus between the identity of goods qua the penultimate sale/sale preceding the export transaction, and the export itself. To put in other words, the petitioner, or any assessee who claims benefit of the exemption under Section 5(3), must be in a position to unambiguously establish that the identity of the goods/products, purchased/sold in penultimate sale, on the one hand, and those goods/products that are the subject matter of export, on the other hand, are one and the same. 15. In the present case, the petitioner claims to have purchased hosiery yarn that was converted into mens shorts sets. All the authorities below have looked into the documents in detail rendering the following findings (i) the petitioner has filed purchase bills establishing the purchase of hosiery yarn (ii) the items exported are stated to be mens shorts sets (iii) the description of the goods exported reveals that the composition of the products exported is 90% cotton and 10% polyester yarn ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ber 1 on 2.11.95 by and also on 30.3.96. They have raised bill No.2 on 12.12.95 and also on 30.3.96. When the order has been given on 2.11.95 by Parkin Mills and yarn delivered by them on 6.11.95 it is not known as to how there can be supply of 5016 sets of 308 mens shorts on 2.11.95 vide invoice 1/2.2.11.95. So also the order has been given on 12.12.95 and the yarn was supplied on 28.12.95, 1.1.96 and 5.1.96. For this there cannot be an export bill dated 2/12.12.95. Obviously the appellants have raised two sets of bills one on 2.11.95 and 12.12.95 and the others on 30.3.96. The above reveals that this records produced are not reliable and acceptable. Taking into consideration all aspects of the case, I hold that the disallowance of export sales is proper since the goods. ordered for and the goods exported are different. I sustain the disallowance made and dismiss the appeal relating to this issue.' 18. The petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu V. Raman & Co. and others (93 STC 185) confirming the decision in the case of Govindan & Co. V. The State of Tamil Nadu (35 STC 50). 19. The judgment of the Hon'ble Su....