RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common prayer in all the original petitions is to quash the revised orders of assessment dated May 29, 2003 made for the years 1998 -99, 1999 -2000 and 2000 -2001, wherein the first respondent has levied purchase tax under Section 7 -A(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on the purchase turnover of vegetable oil purchased by the petitioner from the registered dealer.

(2.) THE allegations of the petitioner are that during the course of his business, he purchased sunflower oil, soyabean oil and refined RBD palmolein oil from various registered dealers inside the State of Tamil Nadu and the same were stock transferred to his branches outside the State of Tamil Nadu. This was already noticed at the time of original assessment and final orders were made. Subsequently, the first respondent, noticing that the goods purchased from registered dealers had not suffered tax at their hands due to exemption granted by the Government under Section 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, in respect of sales tax payable on their sales turnover up to Rs. 300 crores, issued notices for revision of assessment for the said years, proposing to levy purchase tax under Section 7 -A(1)(c) and penalty under Section 16(2) read with Section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The petitioner filed his objection on April 9, 2003. Without properly considering the objections, the first respondent has confirmed his proposal contained in the revision notices. The entire orders suffer from jurisdiction and from errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Though statute provides for appeal remedy, the filing of appeal would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner by way of payment of pre -condition deposit for entertainment of appeal and further payment for obtaining stay. As the matter involves question of law, the petitioner is approaching this Special Tribunal.

(3.) WITH respect to levy of penalty, all the facts and figures were before the authority at the time of original assessment and the assessments were also completed and tax dues were paid. The element of wilful non -disclosure is absent in these cases and therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 16(2) is illegal. In support of this contention, the learned Senior Counsel also relied on the decisions reported in [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC) (Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa) and [1997] 104 STC 61 (Mad.) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Sri Shanmughananda and Co.).