(1.) In this writ petition, the order dated 4.12.2000 made in Tax case (Appeal) No.2455 of 1997 by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal is challenged.
(2.) The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act".). For the assessment year 1985-86, it reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs.2,13,38,399/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased Potassium Chloride for an amount of Rs.69,991-25ps, Rs.1,40,325/- and Rs.6,34,900/- from three registered dealers and used it in the manufacture of Potassium Chlorate. Since the purchases were made from registered dealers under the Act, the petitioner was not liable to pay tax. Originally, the Assessing Officer granted exemption as claimed on such purchases. However, pursuant to the inspection dated 10.9.1987, the original order was revised on the above said turnover of purchases of Chloride made from (i) Industrial Chemicals (ii) Selva agency and (iii) Mani Agency on the ground that the three selling dealers have not paid tax. The petitioner carried the revised order on appeal before the first appellate authority and obtained an order of setting aside the assessment on those transactions. However, the Joint Commissioner by invoking his suo motu revisional power and after hearing the petitioner's objections, modified the order of revisional assessment by fastening the liability on the petitioner in respect of the purchase turnover from the three selling dealers at 50:50 basis. As against the order of the Joint Commissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Special Tribunal under Section 38 of the Act. The Special Tribunal by its order, which is impugned in the writ petition, confirmed the order. The correctness of the said order is now put in issue in the present writ petition.
(3.) The learned counsel Mr.Sundareswaran appearing for the petitioner has contended that the purchases made by the petitioner were covered under valid bills issued by the selling dealers, who were registered under the Act and hence the question of shifting levy of tax under Section 7-A of the Act is unjustified. He further contended that by producing the purchase bills, the petitioner had proved that there were earlier sales by the selling dealers in favour of the petitioner. Hence, it is for the revenue to collect the tax from the dealers, who issued the bills. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the entire amount has been paid by way of cheque and in such circumstances, it is for the Department to collect the tax from the selling dealers and mulcting the liability on the petitioner is not correct.