IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.07.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA and THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN Tax Case (Revision) No.2380 of 2008 The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Trichy Division, Trichy. ... Petitioner. Vs Tvl.Karur Ghee and Maligai Stores, 70, Mutt Street, Kumbakonam. ... Respondent. Prayer:- Tax Case Revision Petition filed to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras, in T.M.P.No.193/1993 in T.A.No.357/93 dated 21.03.1994. against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Thanjavur dated 17.2.93 in Appeal No & Year 608/92 against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer-I, Kumbakonam dated 28.9.92 in TNGST No.423220/91-92. For Petitioner : Mr.Haja Naziruddin,. Spl. Govt. Pleader (T). For Respondent : Mr.A.Ravichandran O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.) The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Trichy Division, is the petitioner. The challenge is to the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras, in T.M.P.No.193 of 1993 in T.A.No.357 of 1993 dated 21.03.1994, which related to the assessment year 1991-92. The abovesaid order of the Tribunal was passed in the Enhancement Petition filed by the petitioner. 2. The issue relates to suppression of certain purchases and sales, which were found recorded in three note books marked 'A', 'B' and 'C', recovered at the time of inspection made by the Enforcement Wing Officers on 10.06.1991. In fact, based on the said inspection and the very same records, such suppression of purchases and sales noted in the three note books pertaining to the assessment year 1991 was also unearthed. The respondent-assessee did not have the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ supporting bills. In the said circumstances, for both the assessment years, such entires found in the note books were treated as suppression and the assessing authority proceeded to levy tax based on such suppression. As far as the present assessment year was concerned, viz., 1991-92, such suppressed turn over was determined in a sum of Rs.77,764 /- and the tax liability worked out to Rs.27,669/- + surcharge of Rs.3,320/-. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the said determination. The petitioner, therefore, preferred T.M.P.No.193 of 1993 for enhancement before the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied upon the earlier order of its own, dated 27.11.1992, passed in T.A.No.807/1992 which pertains to the assessment year 1990- 91, in respect of similar suppression, which came to be noted from the very same notebooks, which were recovered in the course of the inspection held on 10.06.1991. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), in the course of his submissions, stated that the respondent assessee had no explanation to offer as regards the purchases and sales recorded in their note books marked 'A', 'B' and 'C' and those transactions were not supported by any books, and the Assessing Authority was well justified in treating the value of those transactions as the sales turn over for the purpose of levy of tax. The Special Government Pleader also stated that the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 27.11.1992 passed in T.A.No.807 of 1992 was the subject matter of revision in T.C.No.223 of 1993 before the Special Tribunal and that the Special Tribunal, by its order dated 22.11.2000, allowed the said tax case and thereby the enhancement petition of the petitioner for the earlier assessment year, viz., 1990-91 came to be allowed. 4. Having heard the learned Special Government Pleader as well as the counsel for the respondent assessee, we are convinced that in the absence of any acceptable explanation or satisfactory documents, produced by the respondent-assessee as regards the purchases and sales noted in the notebooks marked 'A', 'B' and 'C', the petitioner was justified in treating the said amount as one of suppression, for the purpose of levy of tax. The contention of the respondent that they were dealing only with fully exempted goods like butter and curd is of no consequence, when the respondent had no materials to satisfactorily explain before the assessing authority as well as before the other lower appellate authorities in order to exclude even those figures found in the note books from levy of any tax. Added to that, the stand of the petitioner that the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 27.11.1992 was set aside by the Special Tribunal by order dated 22.11.2000 in T.C.No.223 of 1993 has not been disputed before us. 5. Therefore, we conclude that the Tribunal's order in having dismissed the enhancement petition was not justified. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed. The enhancement petition stands ordered. The penalty part of which ordered by the assessing authority shall https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stand deleted. The enhancement petition is therefore confined to the tax liability on the sum of Rs.77,764/- and along with the surcharge payable on it. The Tax Case (Revision) stands disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar bs/ To 1. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras. 2. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Thanjavur. 3. The Commercial Tax Officer-1, Kumbakonam. 4. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Trichy Division, Trichy. 1 cc to Mr.A.Ravichandran, Advocate, Sr.No.55279 1 cc to Spl.Government Pleader,(Taxes) Sr.No.55506 T.C.(R) No.2380 of 2008 BV {CO} TP/6.8.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/