TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 447
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the above Tax Case Revision under Section 38 of the TNGST Act, 1959. (2) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/assessee contended that during the TNGST regime, the Assessing Officer cannot go by the report of the Inspection Officer and the Inspection Officer should make a physical verification of the stock before proceeding to levy tax. In the instant case, the petitioner, dealer in Marbles, tiles and granites etc., is properly maintaining the stock and other accounts and regularly filing the monthly returns. While so, for the Assessment Year 1998-99, based on the Inspection Report, the Assessment Order was passed, based on the visual inspection of the stock without physical verification. The Assessment order, challenged befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in having upheld the contention of the 1st Appellate Authority in applying a different yardstick for different commodities with regard to the alleged stock variation arising out of the inspection conducted on the same day? (4) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/assessee contended that a huge stock piled up in the godown of the assessee cannot be physically verified within six hours and it will take at least three days. While so, the inspection report, admittedly, pursuant to the inspection of the stock within six hours, is being relied on by the Assessing Officer, even without he making the stock verification personally to satisfy the veracity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2 Cuddapa stones at 11% (-)7,501 Rs.10/- 75,010 3 Ceramic Tiles at 20% (-)1,487 Rs.35/- 52,045 4 Granites at 11% (-)7,737 Rs.50/- 3,86,850 (7) Based on the report, the Assessment Order came to be passed on 28.06.2002, fixing the tax liability at Rs. 11,16,317/- along with penalty at Rs. 2,01,135/-. (8) The Appellate Authority, as against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 28.06.2002, partly allowed the appeal in AP.No.234/2002, and granted the relief by setting aside and deleting the additions made insofar as the alleged suppression of stocks in respect of ceramic tiles since the same was not proved. However, insofar as cuddapa stones and granites are concerned, the stock difference to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, and in the light of the orders passed by the Authorities below, we find that the fact finding authorities have arrived at a conclusion that there had been a physical verification of stock and difference to the tune of Rs. 4,61,860/- as suppression and it is not that the verification was made by merely high estimation and the verification of the stock physically been observed by the First Appellate Authority based on record and being a fact finding authority, we are not inclined to entertain the submission of the petitioner who even now, without producing any contra document regarding stock and purchase, merely harp on the impossibility of measuring the stocks by high estimation, whereas the records show that there was physical stock veri....