AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—T.C. (Revision) Nos. 1284 of 2006 and 410 of 2011 are filed by the assessee against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai dated November 24, 1998 in TMP. No. 1051 of 1995 in T.A. No. 1057 of 1995. T.C. (R) No. 1284 of 2006 was admitted on October 13, 2008. T.C. (Revision) No. 410 of 2011 is admitted on the following question of law:
The Appellate Tribunal went wrong in modifying the enhancement petition filed by the State in TMP. No. 1051 of 1995 by sustaining the purchase turnover from 2 dealers, viz., Kandan Steel House and M.M. Traders without furnishing any explanation for sustaining such turnover. In the very same order, purchase from other dealers under similar circumstances has been allowed by adopting 50: 50 ratio and only in respect of the said dealers, entire purchase along with penalty has been sustained by modifying the enhancement petition.
By virtue of filing of T.C. (Revision) No. 410 of 2011 and the same was admitted on the above question of law, T.C. (Revision) No. 1284 of 2006 is dismissed as infructuous.
The assessee questions the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in so far as it relates to the order partly allowing the enhancement petition filed by the Revenue.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials available on record.
The assessment year herein relates to 1990-91. Based on purchases stated to have been made from four traders, revised assessment order was passed u/s 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act by the assessing officer. The assessing officer has passed such revised order based on the enquiry with the bill traders, who admitted that they had neither delivered the goods nor received any consideration but only issued bills for a commission. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee filed appeals in respect of two assessment years, viz., 1989-90 and 1990-91, The Appellate Assistant Commissioner modified the order of the assessing officer and granted certain relief but sustained certain portion of the order of the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner over certain non-grant of relief, the assessee filed further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Revenue has filed enhancement petition against the relief granted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the assessee.
The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dealt with both the appeal filed by the assessee and enhancement petition filed by the Revenue. Admittedly, for the assessment year 1989-90, the Tribunal has dismissed the enhancement petition. However, for the subsequent year, viz., 1990-91, the issue which is raised before this court, the Tribunal has taken a different stand in partly allowing the enhancement petition, by observing as under:
In respect of appeal in T.A. No. 1057 of 1995 against the order in AP. No. 390 of 1992 for the year 1990-91 the enhancement petition is partly allowed for levy of tax and penalty (equal to 50 per cent of tax due) in respect of the transactions covered by bogus bills of Tvl. Kandan Steel House, and Tvl. M.M. Traders, Madras. The rest of the order of the first appellate authority for the year 1990-91 stands confirmed. In the result the appeal in T.A. No. 1057 of 1995 is dismissed and enhancement petition is partly allowed.
On a perusal of the above portion of the order shows that for allowing the enhancement petition in part, the Tribunal has not assigned any reason. It is not known as to how for the assessment year 1989-90 alone, under similar circumstances, the Tribunal has distinguished and dismissed the enhancement petition.
Since the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal granted relief to the assessee by dismissing the enhancement petition for the assessment year 1989-90 and also considering the fact that the issue involved is similar one, we follow the same for the assessment year 1990-91 also. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal with regard to order allowing partly the enhancement petition. It is made clear that the order of the Tribunal in all other respects remains unaltered. In the result, the Tax Case Revision No. 410 of 2011 stands allowed with the above observation. No costs.