| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 2027 1991 SLD 2027 |
Madras High Court
21ST September, 1990
KANAKARAJ, VENKATASWAMI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
21ST September, 1990
KANAKARAJ, VENKATASWAMI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
N. Srinivasamoorthy
VS
State Of Tamil Nadu
Law:
Section:
JUDGMENT Venkatasami, J. 1. This tax (revision) case is filed against as order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras, in T.A. No. 668 of 1979 dated October 1, 1980. 2. Brief facts relating to the case are the following : The petitioner is not a registered dealer either under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, or under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the assessment year 1973-74, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Adayar Division, by order dated April 18, 1978, determined the total and taxable turnover of the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 1,76,000 taxable at 3 1/2 per cent. In addition to the tax, the assessing authority also levied penalty in a sum of Rs. 9,240 under section 12(3) of the Act for not disclosing the turnover to the department till it was detected. The turnover, according to the assessing officer, represents the sale consideration received by the petitioner towards supply and fixing of auditorium chairs. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, confirming the assessment order, including the levy of penalty. On further appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, while confirming the levy of tax, reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,000. 3. Mr. K. J. Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that all the three authorities blindly applied the ratio in the judgment in A. R. Brothers v. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in [1979] 44 STC 500 (Mad), without appreciating the fine distinction available on facts. According to the learned for the petitioner, when the assessment proceedings are under process, all the records were taken by the Central excise authorities for the purpose of finding out whether there was manufacturing of any commodity liable to excise duty and, therefore, the petitioner could not place all the materials. However, before the Tribunal, a detailed affidavit giving the nature of transaction was filed, which was not disputed by filing of any counter, and in spite of that, the Tribunal has applied the ratio in [1979] 44 STC 500 (Mad). (A.R. Brothers v. Government of Tamil Nadu). It is seen from the affidavit that the petitioner has given the following facts : "At…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492