RUCHAK METALS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Assessee has come forward with this revision challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 12.8.2002 passed in T.A. No. 234 of 2001. The question of law which the Petitioner has raised in this revision are as under:

(2.) The brief facts are, the Petitioner ? Assessee is a dealer in brasswares. It reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 7,93,057/-. The Assessing Authoritydetermined the same at Rs. 8,98,897/- and levied penalty of Rs. 430/-. Whileassessing the liability of tax, the Assessing Authority initially proposed toassess 70% of the turnover at 8% under the residual entry of Part ? B of the First Schedule and 30% at 4% under item 7-C of Part -B of the First Schedule. Thoughthe Petitioner contended that the whole of the taxable turnover should be assessedat 4% as the brasswares dealt with by the Petitioner falls only under item 7-C of Part-B of First Schedule, which provides for only 4% tax, the Assessing Authority, however, found that the Petitioner, out of inter-state purchase turnover of Rs. 2,81,831/- effected purchases of brass utensils and Kuthuvilaku to the value of Rs. 1,38,196/- and the remaining turnover of Rs. 1,43,645/- represented sale of brass items. Thereafter, by making a specific reference to the description of item 7-C namely, Brass and Copper Domestic Utensils, for which the rate of tax was fixed at 4% with effect from 5.3.1997 by Act No. 40 of 1997, held that, the liability of tax for the domestic utensils and other brassware's can be apportioned at 35:65. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty of Rs. 430/- invoking Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.

(3.) On appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the First Appellate Authority while affirming the order of the Assessing Authority, enhanced the percentage of the brassware's as between domestic utensils and other wares to 50% and 50% and also confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Authority. The Tribunal, having affirmed the said order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the present revision came to be entertained.