AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Duraiswamy, J.—The above revision case arises against the order in M.T.A. No. 234 of 1993, dated 18.01.2002, on the file of the
Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Additional Bench), Madurai.
The Appeal in M.T.A. No. 234 of 1993 was filed against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli in Appeal No.
485 of 1992, dated 21.12.1992 relating to the assessment year 1991-1992 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The appellants
have disputed the assessment made on a turnover of Rs. 4,02,654/- involving a tax effect of Rs. 16,117/-, additional sales tax of Rs. 6,994/- and
surcharge of Rs. 283/-. They have also disputed the penalty levied at Rs. 17,804/-.
The appellants had been assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 39,47,980/- as against the reported total and taxable turnover of Rs.
11,17,466/- and Rs. 7,02,297/- respectively as against the results of inspection conducted by the Department on 19.04.1991 and 18.07.1991
and also defects unearthed during the course of check of accounts. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty u/s 12(3) of the Act. Aggrieved over
the orders of the Assessing Officer, the appellants filed appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli who modified the
order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved over the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli, the appellants filed second
appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Additional Bench), Madurai. The Tribunal modified the order of the Appellate Assistant
Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli by adopting the output of coconut oil for the copra crushed at 50% of the turnover. The Tribunal also modified the
penalty levied accordingly.
Challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Additional Bench), Madurai, the appellants have filed the above tax
revision case.
Heard Mr. K. Balasubramaniam, the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants.
On a careful consideration of the materials available on records and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants, it could be
seen that the authorised representative of the inspecting officials adopted a ratio of 28% while adopting the output of coconut oil for the copra
crushed at the first instant and for the second instant they have adopted 50% ratio. Therefore, inspecting officials took an inconsistent view while
adopting the output of coconut oil for the copra crushed.
The Tribunal while taking into consideration the contentions raised by the appellants found that the inspecting officials have not adduced
convincing reason for adopting different ratio for the same commodity. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the ratio at 50% to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal also modified the penalty levied accordingly. The Tribunal also found that the appellants have not placed any specific and deliberate
omission for restoring the order of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has rightly modified the order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT).
That apart the tribunal has exercised the discretion judiciously. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the tribunal.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, (AB), Madurai, is within the
discretionary powers and it does not warrant any interference from this Court. Therefore, the Tax Case Revision is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Tax Case Revision is dismissed. No costs.