@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P. Jyothimani, J.@mdashThe revision petition is filed to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore passed in C. T. A. No. 165 of 1997 and seeking admission on the following questions of law:
(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and had valid materials to modify the appeal filed by the assessee without giving any finding to that effect?
(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in modifying the appeal even after giving a finding that there are stock difference and such stock would not have been brought to regular accounts for inspection?
(3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the penalty u/s 12(3)(b) especially, when the Tribunal itself had held that there is stock variation?
The assessment year herein relates to 1993-94. The place of business of the assessee was inspected on October 20, 1993 and stock variations were noticed on the commodities, viz., groundnut kernel, oil and oil-cake. The assessing officer therefore'', revised the assessment for the year 1993-94 and levied surcharge at 15 percent and penalty at 150 per cent. After deducting the penalty already paid, viz., Rs. 15,914, the assessing officer worked out penalty at Rs. 1,27,600. It was against the'' said order, the assessee filed appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Salem, who modified the order of the assessing authority and partly remanded the matter to the assessing officer for fresh disposal. It was against the said order, the assessee filed further appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.2. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had considered the additions made by the assessing officer and sustained the additions to the following extent as against Rs. 5,38,100.
3. Further, the Tribunal had set aside the penalty portion on the ground that it was not made on concrete estimate but on the best of judgment assessment.
4. The main contention of the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the Revenue is that once the stock variation is admitted, imposing penalty is consequent upon the same and hence, there is no justification in relieving the assessee from the liability of payment of penalty. We do not accept the contention of the Special Government Pleader (Taxes). This is a case, where, the Tribunal applied its mind to set aside the penalty and it is not as if the Tribunal has entirely ignored the entire transaction. Further, we are of the view that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has adopted correct method to arrive at the conclusion to set aside the penalty. Therefore, no substantial question of law arise for consideration for admitting the tax case revision. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in rejecting the tax case revision. Accordingly, the tax case revision is dismissed. No costs.
