STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. SHAMANMAL LAXMICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has erred in not considering that the assessee cannot approbate or reprobate the statement made during inspection as held in the case of Yousuff Radio v. Board of Revenue reported in [1979] 43 STC 525 (Mad)? (ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal is erroneous inasmuch as the reconciliation statement relied on by it included sales made during subsequent year 1995 -96 also? (iii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in having accepted the claim of the respondent for the first time that goods had been sent to other State sellers for the purpose of replacement when it was not stated so before the inspecting officers? (iv) Whether the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable inasmuch as it has deleted the turnover without discussing the findings of the first appellate authority in this regard?

(2.) BUT when we see the orders of the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) and the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, it is clear that the matter has been gone into in detail and the only question that has to be decided is only the question of fact. The Commercial Tax Officer was not inclined to accept the explanation given by the assessee with regard to the stock variation. As regards the inter -State purchase which was not accounted for, the Commercial Tax Officer is of the opinion that, 'But for the inspection, the transaction are bound to go unaccounted'. Similarly, with regard to the estimation based on the D7 records, the objections raised by the assessee were not accepted. Against this, an appeal was filed.

(3.) WE find that the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench) has considered each issue in great detail. As regards the discrepancy in stock which was treated as suppressed turnover, the Tribunal found on fact that the reconciliation statement produced by the assessee which was supported by other relevant records cannot be ignored and was of the opinion that the appellants have explained the stock variation with regard to mixer grinder (78 Nos.), table fan (66 Nos.) and ceiling fan (56 Nos.) and have not explained the difference relating to chokes (104 Nos.).