MURUGAN TRADING COMPANY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Tax Case Revision has been filed by the assessee. The assessment year pertains to 1988-89.

(2.) The petitioner is a dealer in groundnut and Groundnut Kernel at Palani. The petitioner reported its taxable turnover for the above assessment year and an order of assessment was also passed on 15.03.1990. Subsequently, there was an inspection of the petitioner's place of business by the officials of the respondent on 10.09.1990. In the said inspection, four numbers of Form XX-B declarations were recovered. According to the respondent, the verification of the said Form XX-B declarations revealed corrections in date, value and quantity of goods transported to the petitioner's place of business. The nature of corrections were also noted by the appellate Tribunal. In the light of the said discrepancy noted at the time of inspection in the above referred to four Form XX-B declarations, a notice for revising the assessment was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, a revised order of assessment was passed on 25.11.1991. According to the respondent, the corrections found in Form XX-B declarations resulted in suppression of purchase of 14 bags of groundnut which were valued at a sum of Rs. 1,28,466/-. While revising the taxable turnover by adding the above alleged suppression to the value of Rs. 1,28,466/- an equal addition was made. The tax liability was therefore added on the additional value of Rs. 2,56,932, for which a penalty at the rate of 150% was also levied apart from surcharge. The petitioner, having lost its case before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal, has come forward with this revision challenging the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the Assessing authority and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

(3.) Mr. K. Venkataraman, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in his submissions fairly contended that even though the alleged suppression based on any discrepancy in Form XX-B declarations is to be taken as correct, there could not have been a value addition to the equal sum and also penalty imposed thereon. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the leviability of tax is at the point of purchase by the petitioner. In the Form XX-B declaration, the quantity sold to the petitioner is noted by the concerned farmer, even though first part of statement is made by the petitioner and in the circumstances it was contended that the whole blame cannot be fastened on the petitioner.