IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 09.04.2009 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Tax Case (Revision) No.76 of 2009 The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Salem Division, Salem. Petitioner v. Tvl.Kaveri Oil & Fertilizers 76, Park Road, Erode. Respondent Revision Petition filed under Section 38 of the Tamil nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl.Bench), Coimbatore dated 29.10.2001 made in C.T.S.A.No.69 of 1999 against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Erode dated 21.9.98 and made in A.P.No.222/98 against the order of the Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Park Road Circle, Erode dated 30.3.98 and made in TNGST NO.688073/92-93. For appellant : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen,Spl.G.P.(Taxes) ORDER (Order of the Court was delivered by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN J.) The Revenue is on appeal against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl.Bench), Coimbatore dated 29.10.2001 made in C.T.S.A.No.69 of 1999 relating to the T.N.G.S.T. assessment for the assessment year 1992-93. 2. The assessee is a dealer on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Park Road Circle at Erode. For the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee was finally assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs.1,02,69,69.50 and Rs.59,09,402.50 respectively. Subsequently, the place of business including that of the sister concern of the assessee were inspected by the Enforcement Officials on 13.12.1995 by which certain records relating to the business activities were recovered for verification by issuance of D.7 receipt. The officials of Enforcement Wing Department examined the entries found in the slips and other D7 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ records with the regular accounts maintained for the year 1992-93 and found that they were dully accounted for in respect of the business transaction made in respect of the assessment year. However, on further scrutiny of accounts for the assessment year 1992-93 it revealed that the heavy purchases of groundnut oil was made. No bought vouchers were produced in support nor any voucher Number is noted against each purchase. The source of purchase was also not made known. The sister concerns functioning in the same campus are having crushing units. Evidently the above quantities of groundnut oil of 97,680 tins should be, in the opinion of the enforcement officials, the result of their own production by way of crushing done in the crushing unit of her sister concern thereby avoid the tax in respect of purchase of groundnut kernal. The sale of oil cake should also have been suppressed. On that basis, the completed assessment was sought to be reopened by indicating the same and also indicating that penalty could also be imposed under Section 16(2). The reply submitted by the assessee has been rejected and a revision of assessment has been made under Section 16(1) and penalty has also been levied under Section 16(2) of the Act. However, on appeal, the appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order of revision of assessment, which was confirmed by the Tribunal also when it was agitated by the Department by way of further appeal. The correctness of the same is now put in issue in this revision. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner submitted that the purchases of groundnut were only supported by bought vouchers from agriculturists. The bought vouchers are not complete, in the sense, the complete address of the agriculturists have not been given in the bought vouchers. Hence, the bought vouchers cannot be taken for consideration and the entire groundnut kernal which is the subject matter of the bought vouchers has to be regarded as a purchase outside the account and crushed in the sister concern as an oil and on that basis he contended that the revision of assessment is in accordance with the statutory provisions. He also relied on a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of MARI ANTONY VS. STATE OF KERALA, (2000) 120 STC 224 to contend that as the unaccounted purchase made by the assessee, the source of which is within the special knowledge of the assessee only, it is not possible on the part of the revenue to show from where the unaccounted purchases were made. That was a fact which was exclusively within the assessee's knowledge. So, the burden of proof is exclusively on the assessee to produce the bought voucher. 4. We heard the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 5. The only reason for the revenue to reopen the assessment was that there was a huge purchase of oil. This has been explained by the assessee, that those oils were manufactured out of the groundnut purchased from the agriculturists and the bought vouchers were also produced while framing the original accounts and they were accepted. The reason now stated for reopening the assessment is the bought vouchers did not contain the complete https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ details of the persons from whom the assessee purchased the groundnut. When the assessee is purchasing a small quantity of groundnut from the agriculturists it may not be possible for them to record the entire details as to the name, address and the village from which the agriculturists hail and the extent of the land he is owning or the source of purchase such as whether the groundnut has been acquired by him as a cooly for working in the groundnut field or he is owning a land in wahich groundnut is cultivated. In addition to that, the idea conceived by the revenue that all these purchases were crushed by the sister concern, which was also laid in the very same campus is also defeated by the meter reading of the sister concern, which is owning a crushing unit. There is virtually no electrical consumption. In addition to that it is also on record that the said sister concern has stopped its activities several years ago and that stoppage of the activities has also been informed to the Department. 6. In the above factual matrix, we are of the view that not only the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but also the Tribunal have taken a correct view which requires no interference by this Court in this revision. Hence, the revision is dismissed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. usk To 1. THE TAMILNADU SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, COIMBATORE 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CT) SALEM DIVISION, SALEM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PARK ROAD, CIRCEL, ERODE. 4. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) ERODE. + 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.13410 + 1 CC To Mr.N.Inbarajan, Advocate SR NO.13529 T C (R) No.76 of 2009 SAI {CO} TP/21.4.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/