IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-07-2011 THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Tax Case No.730 of 2006 (Revision No.298 of 2006) The State of Tamilnadu represented by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Madurai Divsion, Madurai. .. Petitioner. Versus Tvl.Bhagavan Metals, 69A, Khanpalayam 2nd Street, Madurai. .. Respondent. Prayer: Revision Petition filed to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB) Madurai, dated 11.8.1999, in Madurai Tribunal Appeal No.101 of 1996 and against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Madurai (South) in TNGST No.471558/95-94 dated 3.11.1995 and against the proceedings of the Commercial Tax Officer, Munichalai Road, Assessment Circle, Madurai. For Petitioner: Mr.R.Sivaraman Special Government Pleader For Respondent: Mr.M.Nanda Kumar O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.) The revenue is on revision, as against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, relating to the assessment year 1993-1994. 2. The place of business of the appellants was subjected to inspection by the Enforcement Wing Officers, on 25.8.1993, wherein, they found deficit stock of 114.790 kgs of S.S.Sheets. The verification of the extracted bills of inter-state purchase of S.S.Patta and S.S.Wares, with reference to the accounts revealed inter-state purchase of S.S.wares, S.S.Sheet and S.S.patta for 130 kgs 1824 kgs and 2510 kgs, respectively, and the same were not accounted for in the accounts of the assessee. Thus, based on the inspection results, the Assessing Officer determined the total and taxable turnover and levied penalty, under Section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. It is seen from the reading of the assessment order that in respect of the inter-state purchase relating to the three bills secured at the time of inspection by the Enforcement Officers, the assessee denied the purchase, on the ground that they had not taken delivery of the inter-state purchase. Evidently, the Registration Certificate Numbers of the sellers were not found in the bills. After considering the objections taken, the assessment as regards the inter-state purchases was made. 4. The asseseee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who pointed out the stock variation noticed at the time of inspection and that the omission to record the interstate purchase amounting to Rs.1,19,469/-, was a clear indication of the purchase suppression and sales omission. Going by the materials thus available, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment on actual suppression. However, as regards the two times addition made for probable omission, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner sustained the same at the equal time. Corresponding penalty was thus sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 5. Not satisfied with the relief thus granted, the assessee went on appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein, the assessee took the plea that the documents seized and the extracts taken from the check post clearly showed that the outside state dealers names were not shown along with the address. Thus, the assessee contended that there was no material to hold that there was purchase suppression leading to a sales omission. 6. In a very cryptic order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal accepted the plea of the assessee by stating "the argument of the learned Advocate seems to be correct". Except for extracting the arguments of the learned Advocate, the order of the Tribunal carries no discussion referring the materials to cancel the additions made on the basis of the actual materials recovered. The Tribunal held that while cancelling the actual suppression, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ought to have cancelled the addition made twice on the probable suppression and omission. Thus, the Tribunal deleted the equal addition made to the actual suppression. The Tribunal, thus, upheld the actual suppression and deleted the equal addition, and correspondingly, reduced the penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is on appeal before this Court. 7. A reading of the order of the Assessing Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal shows the inconsistent stand taken by the assessee. While before the assessing officer the assessee denied having any transaction with the Delhi parties, before the Tribunal, the assessee accepted the purchase effected from these sources. Thus, the extracts and the stock variation clearly pointed out the nature of dealing of the assessee warranting equal addition, as had been done by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. As already pointed out, the Tribunal passed a very mechanical order, extracted the arguments and accepted the plea of the assessee on the face value to delete the equal time addition. Although, normally, on a revision this Court does interfere with the order of the Tribunal, where there are findings of the Tribunal, which is the highest fact finding authority in the hierarchy of appeal and revision authorities, when the order of the Tribunal lacks any material to base its view and when there is no discussion at all as to why it thought fit to cancel the estimated addition, on the face of the materials available, as had been found by the Assessing Officer, as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, we uphold the contention of the Revenue. Consequently, we have no hesitation in allowing the Tax Case Revision, thereby, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and restore the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tax Case is allowed. No costs. csh Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, III Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-90. 2.The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Madurai Division, Madurai. 3. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Madurai. 4. The Commercial Tax Officer, Munichalai Road, Madurai. + 1 cc to Spl Government Pleader (T), SR No.42404 + 1 cc to Mr. S. Balamurugan, Advocate SR No.42562 SGL(CO) SR/5.9.2011 Tax Case (Appeal) No.730 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/