SAKTHI INDUSTRIES, VYASARPADI, CHENNAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, WASHERMANPET - I, CHENNAI AND TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, SINGARAVELAR MALIGAI, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai, confirming all the three orders by the lower authorities.

(2.) The assessee owns a factory and manufactures aluminium coils and sheets. He also does the job work of converting the aluminium scraps into the finished products. The assessment authority found that the assessee had concealed the sale of aluminium sheets to two parties, and on that account, levied the tax at 5% on turn-over of Rs.12,31,423/- for the assessment year 1993-94 and also levied penalty at 150% under Section 12(3)(b)(v) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to the tune of Rs.1,38,457/-. The plea of the assessee was that this was not a sale, but in fact, some scrap was sent by him to these two parties, who had sent back the said scrap to him and he had converted that scrap into the finished products of aluminium sheets and coils and had charged those two parties only for the job work. The assessment authority had found that the plea that the petitioner / assessee had only done the job work was not at all justified as there was really no documentary evidence supporting such transactions. The assessing authority noted that even the finished product of aluminium coils and sheets was dispatched and reached by the assessee without charging the transportation charges. He found from the account books that there were no debit entries made even for the transportation charges. The assessment authority therefore arrived at the conclusion that there was a concealment of the turn-over and proceeded to levy a penalty as has been stated above. In the appeal as well as the second appeal, the same findings were confirmed and even there, at that stage the assessee failed to produce any document such as registers, receipts, work contract etc. to justify his plea that he had executed the work contract and executed job work and had not actually sold the aluminium coils and the sheets. The matter therefore reached the Tribunal and the Tribunal took the view that there was no question of law involved as the only question which was argued was as to whether the transaction was in reality a job work or an out and out sale. In our opinion, the Special Tribunal has not committed any error in concluding that this was a pure question of fact and was not liable to be interfered with by the Tribunal in its jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel Mr. Chandran urged that in fact, even on fact, the findings were perverse inasmuch as the authorities had taken into consideration, a singular fact that the assessee had borne the transport charges of the said aluminium coils and the sheets which were allegedly sold by him to the two aforementioned parties. The learned counsel submits that it was nothing unusual if the assessee had used his own vehicle to transport such goods to the aforementioned two parties.