ARUL CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions are filed by the assessee on the following questions of law :

(2.) The relevant assessment yeas are 1995-96 and 1996-97. The assessee submitted a statement for three assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 on November 4, 1998. The assessee is engaged in the business of building and flat promotion. The original authority held that the assessee is liable to pay penalty under section 12(3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, since returns had not been filed declaring the tax liability and therefore, the assessment was made on the basis of "best judgment assessment". On appeal, the appellate authority referred to the words in the original order to show that A1 returns had been filed and only because they had not produced agreements, books of account, balance sheet, etc., in support of the A1 returns, and held that once A1 returns had been filed and on the basis of which, the assessment was made, invocation of section 12(3)(a) of the Act, is not correct. On appeal by the State, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and therefore, the assessee is before us.

(3.) The learned counsel for the assessee relied on (State of Tamil Nadu v. P. S. Srinivasa Iyengar and Sons,1993 89 STC 349) and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court dated October 1, 2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 10201 of 2000 (Rajarajeswari Finance, Sivakasi v. State of Tamil Nadu (State of Madras v. S. G. Jayaraj Nadar & Sons, 1971 28 STC 700). Learned counsel pointed out that even in the order of the assessing officer, the following words are found : "it was found from A1 returns filed, they have reported their total and taxable turnover for 1996-97 and 1997-98". The learned counsel submitted that if the assessment has been made on the basis of their statement, then relying on (State of Tamil Nadu v. P. S. Srinivasa Iyengar and Sons,1993 89 STC 349), it can be held that it should be equated to filing of returns from filing of statement and therefore, there is no case for levy of penalty.