Ace Trading Company vs State of Tamil Nadu

Prabha Sridevan, J.—The tax case revision is directed by the 1 petitioner, questioning the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai, dated July 6, 2001 in T.A. No. 298 of 1999.

The present revision has been filed on the following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Department has discharged the burden of proof cast on it?

(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the additions even without considering the fact that there is no material at all to suggest any other omissions during the assessment year 1990-91?

(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the penalty u/s 12(3) of the Act in the revision of assessment without bringing home the guilt is correct in law?

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner herein would submit that the Tribunal ought to have seen that there is no justification to impose penalty and that there is no material evidence to show that the petitioner had acted deliberately and therefore, the levy of penalty is liable to be set aside.

We have gone through the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer dated March 28, 1996 and we find that at the time of inspection, several defects were noticed and actual sales suppression was also found and after adding the amount equal to the actual suppression towards possible omission, the penalty was imposed.

On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the appellate authority found that towards penalty, 100 per cent addition was excessive and therefore, felt that 50 per cent of the actual sales suppression would meet the ends of justice and accordingly, modified the levy of penalty. Against that, the assessee went before the Tribunal.

The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, on a perusal of relevant records, confirmed the finding regarding the defects noticed at the time of inspection and on the basis of the seized incriminating records and the relevant slips with reference to the regular accounts, found that there was no error on the part of the appellate authority in deleting a portion of actual sales suppression while arriving at the quantum of penalty. Since the appellate authority had exercised its discretion in deleting a portion of actual sales suppression while arriving at the amount of penalty, the Tribunal refused to interfere with the order of appellate authority.

We see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the tax case revision is dismissed. No costs.