w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Vijayaranga Trading Co. v/s The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Joint Commissioner (SMR)


Company & Directors' Information:- THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74899DL1956GOI002674

Company & Directors' Information:- SMR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17290DL2012PTC237165

Company & Directors' Information:- SMR TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909TN2016PTC113743

    Tax Case (Appeal) No. 2277 of 2008

    Decided On, 28 September 2012

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU

    For the Appellant: R. Gangadharan, Advocate. For the Respondent: A.R. Jaya Pratap, Government Advocate (Taxes).



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, to revise the order of the Joint Commissioner (SMR) Of Commercial Taxes, dated 26.07.1993 passed in Ref.No.N1/107572/92.)

K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.

1. The assessee is on appeal in respect of the assessment year 1990-91. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Joint Commissioner, made in his Suo Motu Revision against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

2. The place of business of the assessee was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officers on 07.01.1991 and a stock variation to the tune of Rs.7,605/- was found. It was also found that the assessee had not maintained the production-cum-stock account for oil and oil cake. The Assessing Officer, taking note of the above defects, resorted to best judgment assessment and determined the taxable turnover of Rs.10,14,628/-, besides levying penalty of Rs.232/- under Section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.

3. Aggrieved against the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The first Appellate Authority found that the addition made as actual suppression was adequate, since the variation noticed during inspection was subsequently accounted in the accounts of the assessee. As such, the first Appellate Authority found that the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to two times, was not warranted. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the addition made in respect of actual suppression is sufficient and consequently held that the assessee was entitled to the relief on the turnover of Rs.15,000/- at 3%. The said order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was taken by way of Suo Motu Revision by the Joint Commissioner, who, in turn, after considering the various factors, found that an equal addition towards probable omission would be reasonable and accordingly, the Joint Commissioner re-fixed the turnover so as to bring the same above Rs.10 lakhs. Thus, the Joint Commissioner made an equal addition of Rs.7,500/- apart from the stock variation at Rs.7,500/-. Challenging the said order, the assessee is on revision before us.

4. From the perusal of the orders passed by the Authorities below, we find that the first Appellate Authority, namely, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, is justified in holding that the assessee, having brought into account subsequent to the inspection of the variation in the stock, the addition made by the Assessing Officer, namely, twice the actual variation, is unwarranted. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner made an addition of actual suppression, holding that the same would be adequate towards probable omission.

5. We find that the reasoning of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is just and proper and the Joint Commissioner has re-fixed the turnover only for the purpose of bringing the taxable turnover above Rs.10 lakhs, in order to attract additional sales tax.

6. As we have already found that only an equa

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

l addition, as has been held by the first Appellate Authority, is just and reasonable, taking note of the subsequent accounting, we do not find any valid ground to sustain the order of the Joint Commissioner. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and the order of the Joint Commissioner stands set aside. No costs.
O R