Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl. Sigma Cnc Products on 4 March, 2025
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
T.C.R. No.16 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.R. No.16 of 2025
The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Joint Commissioner (CT)
Salem Division, Salem. .. Petitioner
Vs.
Tvl. Sigma CNC Products
No.20, Electrical & Electronic Industrial Estate
Sipcot, Hosur 635 109. .. Respondent
Prayer : Revision filed under Section 60 of TNVAT Act, 2006 to revise the
order dated 22.08.2022 passed in CTSA No.64 of 2017 on the file of Tamil
Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.C.Harsha Raj
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.B.Raveendran
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:49:33 pm )
T.C.R. No.16 of 2025
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made
by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Respondent is a registered dealer and assessee in the books of the
Assistant Commissioner, Hosur (North). After completion of assessment
under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 (“the Act”) pertaining to
assessment year 2013-14, respondent was issued with a revision order
dated 19.08.2015 invoking Section 27 of the Act. Respondent preferred an
appeal under Section 51 of the Act and the appeal was partly allowed.
Against the order which was partly allowed, the State preferred an appeal
before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 22.8.2022, dismissed
the appeal. This order is in revision before us and the following questions
of law are proposed:
1. Whether the learned tribunal erred in deleting the
purchase turnover of Rs.2,95,972/- even though the
dealer had not produced the purchase bills before the
assessing authority to prove their contentions?
2. Whether the learned tribunal erred in deleting the
sales suppression turnover of Rs.1,04,86,509/-
concurring with the views taken by the First
Appellate Authority that there was no suppression or
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:49:33 pm )
escapement of turnover even though the dealer had
not produced any break up for the labour receipts
before the assessing authority or the appellate
authority?
3. Whether the learned tribunal erred in deleting the
levy of penalty stating that nothing is available on
record to substantiate that the alleged suppressions
were covered by any valid materials for the willful
non disclosure of the turnover which is the only
ingredient warranting the levy of penalty under
Section 27(3)(b) of the Act, even though the
respondent/assessee had suppressed purchase and
sales turnover which was detected only during the
course of inspection and consequent to which, best
judgment was made by levying tax and penalty
towards probably suppression/omission?
2. The points that came up for consideration before the Tribunal
were:
“(a) as to whether the deletion of a turnover of
Rs.2,95,972.00 being the value assessed under
section 12 by the assessing authority, in fact and law
is correct or not?
(b) as to whether the deletion of a turnover of
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:49:33 pm )
Rs.1,04,86,509.00 being the sales suppression fixed
by the assessing authority, in fact and law is correct
or not? and
(c) as to whether the deletion of levy of penalty of
Rs.8,49,721.00 by the first appellate authority was
proper or not?
3. On the first two points, the Tribunal was pleased to approve the
finding of fact made by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal rightly
rejected the State's contention that the assessee could not have produced
documents for the first time before the first appellate authority. The factual
finding has also been given that the value of purchase was available in
trading and profit and loss account and that the purchases had been made
only from the registered dealers. There is a factual finding also that the
assessing authority has not raised any objection to the production of
purchase bills. It is also noted that the appellate authority ascertained the
actual receipts to arrive at the taxable turnover. Since these were factual
findings, there can be no question of law arising thereof.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:49:33 pm )
4. Even as regards levy of penalty, there is a finding that no materials
were forthcoming to hold wilful suppression estimated on trading method
or on account of the estimated sales of wastage that would have obtained
during the process of manufacture.
5. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the
Tribunal's order. Revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ) (MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.)
04.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
To
The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench)
Coimbatore.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:49:33 pm )
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
(kpl)
04.03.2025
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:49:33 pm )
