STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DIVISION Vs. TVL VINAYAGA AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Government has come forward with this revision as against the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 18.11.1998.

(2.) The assessee, who is a dealer in G.I. Pipes had submitted its return for the assessment year 1994-95. There was a dispute in regard to the stock variation of Rs. 3,72,162/-, which was noticed at the time of inspection by the authorities on 21.01.1995 and the corresponding levy of tax, surcharge and additional sales tax were in dispute. The assessee also disputed the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,06,517/- under Section 12(3) of the Act, which was levied by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved against the order levying penalty and additional sales tax, the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in Appeal No. 610/94. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 02.04.1997 has deleted the equal addition made on turnover to the tune of Rs. 3,59,251/- and ultimately, the taxable turnover of the assessee was refixed at Rs. 20,80,442/- and the consequently, the penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act was refixed at Rs. 17,864/- levying separately under each Act. The assessee against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in AP. No. 245 of 1997 and the Revenue also filed an enhancement petition in TMP. No. 171 of 1997, which were taken up jointly and a common order was passed by the Tribunal on 18.11.1998. The Tribunal, after elaborately considering the details, came to the conclusion that no further addition is required for the stock variation arrived at by the trading account method and following the decision of this Court reported in 103 STC 543, they concluded that no further addition is required in this case and accordingly, set aside and deleted the addition of equal amount of Rs. 1,86,081/- and allowed that portion of the appeal and as far as the enhancement petition is concerned, they rejected the claim for the restoration of turnover of Rs. 7,18,502/- in the enhancement petition and the consequential levy of tax, surcharge, additional sales tax and penalty and in the result, the appeal was modified and the enhancement petition was dismissed. Aggrieved against the modification and the deletion of the equal addition amount, the Revenue has filed the above revision.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.