HEAT TRANSFER DEVELOPMENTS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred against the order dated September 3, 1991, passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Tribunal" in Appeal No. 760 of 1990, which appeal was preferred against the order of reassessment dated September 30, 1989, passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gandhipuram Circle, Coimbatore in TNGST No. 313379/87-88 under section7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as "the TNGST Act".

(2.) THE assessment relates to the purchases of bush, coupling, etc., of the value of Rs. 1, 29, 699 as liable to sales tax even though it mentioned those purchases in this accounts. Of course, the original assessing authority accepted the returns; but subsequently reassessment proceeding was taken up under section7-A of the TNGST Act by issuing appropriate notice thereunder. In the reassessment, the assessing authority (Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gandhipuram Circle) came to the conclusion that the bush, coupling, etc., of the value of Rs. 1, 29, 699 were purchased from unregistered dealers; therefore, the turnover was liable to sales tax. It was further found that as the returns were incorrect to the extent the aforesaid turnover was not shown as liable to tax, penalty was leviable as per section 12(5)(iii) of the TNGST Act. Accordingly, he assessed the tax on the turnover of Rs. 1, 29, 699 at eight per cent to a sum of Rs. 10, 376, surcharge at Rs. 519 and additional surcharge at Rs. 519, and also levied penalty of Rs. 3, 259.

(3.) THE dealer preferred a further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 760 of 1990. It may be pointed out here that there was also another assessment proceeding against the very same dealer for the year 1988-89 in which also the dealer had preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 17 of 1991 before the Appellate Tribunal against the order dated October 25, 1990, passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in Appeal No. 792 of 1989. THE Appellate Tribunal has decided both the appeals by a common order. However, we confine our order to Appeal No. 760 of 1990 relating to the year 1987-88. THE dealer has also preferred another tax revision in T.C. No. 143 of 1994 against the order dated September 3, 1991, passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 17 of 1991, which will be dealt with separately as it relates to the assessment year 1988-89.