Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vs N. Subramaniam Chettiar

Ismail, J.—This is a revision u/s 38 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, preferred by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial

Taxes against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, dated 7th December, 1967. The dealer''s assessment

was reopened pursuant to the discovery of certain documents. We are not referring to all the facts, because the revision is confined to a very

narrow point. One of the items which was included in the revised assessment was a sum of Rs. 2,56,118.61 said to be indicated in the statement F

filed for the purpose of the case. When the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the inclusion of this

amount, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner scrutinised the slips on the basis of which the amount was arrived at and pointed out that there was

no evidence to show that all these amounts represented turnover in respect of sales or purchases and there were several items which showed that

they were simply money transactions by way of payment of monies or receipt of monies from certain other persons in the form of accommodation

loans or contribution to elections ; with the result, he estimated such purely money transactions as 50 per cent of the amount and brought the other

50 per cent alone to tax by including the same in the taxable turnover. However, when the assessee preferred a second appeal to the Tribunal, the

Tribunal deleted the entire Rs. 2,56,118.61 on the ground that there was nothing to show that they represented turnover of sales of purchases. It is

the correctness of this conclusion of the Tribunal that is challenged in the form of revision preferred to this court.

We are of the opinion that in view of one finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error of

law so as to warrant interference by this court. In paragraph 5 of its order, with reference to this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal stated :

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that these amounts represented cash transactions and deleted 50 per cent of it as not relating to

sales. We have perused the relevant entries in the slips. There is no inkling of evidence from the entries that they relate to either purchase or sale

transactions. The entries themselves do speak of only cash transactions.

Thus it will be seen that the Tribunal on a perusal of the slips relied on by the department has come to the conclusion that the slips themselves

did not show that the amounts mentioned therein related to any transaction of purchase or sale. In that context, the Tribunal proceeded to state that

having regard to this feature of the slips on which reliance was placed it was for the department to prove that those transactions related to sales or

purchases. In our opinion, this view of the Tribunal is absolutely unexceptionable. If there had been any intrinsic evidence to show, however limited

it may be in the slips themselves, that the transactions related to sales or purchases, certainly the burden was on the dealer thereafter to establish

that either they did not relate to transactions of sales or purchases or even if they relate to transactions of sales or purchases, they are not liable to

tax under the Act as provided for in Section 10. Once it is found as a fact by the Tribunal that there was no inkling of evidence in the slips

themselves to show that the transactions referred to or related to sales or purchases it was certainly for the department which relies on the slips for

including the amounts mentioned therein in the taxable turnover to establish that the said transactions evidenced by the slips related to sales or

purchases.

The learned Additional Government Pleader very strongly relied on Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, in support of

this revision petition. Section 10 merely states:

The burden of proving that any dealer or any of his transactions is not liable to tax under this Act shall lie on such dealer.

The word ""transaction"" occurring in the section certainly cannot mean any transaction whatever and read in the context of the section occurring

in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the word ""transaction"" can only mean transaction of sale or purchase. Once it is found by the Tribunal

that the slips did not evidence any transaction of sales or purchases, there is no question of Section 10 being attracted.

Under these circumstances, no case whatever has been made out for interference with the order of the Tribunal and, accordingly, this tax

revision petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee 250.