LAWS(MAD)-1995-1-56

STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RAJALAKSHMI COLOUR COMPANY

Decided On January 11, 1995
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Appellant
V/S
Rajalakshmi Colour Company Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for Revenue in seeking admission of these revisions filed under section38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, against the order of the Tribunal dated March 13, 1990. The relevant observations of the Tribunal on the point at issue are in the following lines: Even though the statement recorded from third parties may implicate the assessees, the assessees have not been given a fair opportunity to rebut them and the assessees have categorically denied the transaction even on the date of inspection by their statements dated February 21, 1987 and March 27, 1987. That being the case, it is not known how the authority below tried to make assessment on the assessees in the absence of any other specific evidence. In the circumstances, the suppression arrived at and assessed to tax on a turnover of Rs. 1, 63, 778 is ordered to be deleted.

(2.) ALL that is now submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue is that the Tribunal failed to see that the petitioners -assessees did not ask for any cross -examination before the assessing authority and hence the question of affording opportunity for cross -examination did not arise in this case. But as pointed out by the Tribunal, more than once, the assessees categorically repudiated the alleged statements by the third parties. If that is so, it is the duty of the authorities to have afforded to the assessees an opportunity to cross -examine the third parties. It has also been held in R. G. Bandari and Company v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer 1971 (28) STC 465 (Mad.), that statements given by third parties which would be prejudicial to the assessees, by themselves cannot be the foundation for action, unless the aggrieved assessee is given an opportunity to cross -examine such persons reasonably. Therefore, we are unable to see any question of law arising in the present cases. Accordingly, these revisions are not admitted but dismissed.