State of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. M. Parvathi Trading Company

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2019 TaxPub(VAT) 0460 (Mad-HC) : (2020) 092 ITPJ (V) 0208 State of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. M. Parvathi Trading Company TAMIL NADU VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2006 --Assessment--ValidityStock discrepancy--Suppression of facts--Where stock discrepancy was only due to mingling up of material goods of assessee with that of their sister concerns, which was also duly pointed out by Inspection Officer at the time of inspection, however, assessee produced purchase notes, stock register, etc., for substantiating the same and convincing that alleged stock discrepancy so arrived at was due to the prescribed stock kept together for certain processes at their sister concerns, therefore, Tribunal rightly found that there was no stock discrepancy.--AO in his assessment order determined a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 4,82,375 against the reported total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,18,525. Commissioner modifying the order of AO, ordered to delete the equal addition for probable omission, i.e., Rs. 1,03,730 at 5% and also ordered to confirm the actual stock difference for Rs. 1,03,730 at 5%. In respect of estimation on corresponding purchases, the equal addition for Rs. 78,195 was ordered to be deleted and the actual purchase suppression is confirmed for Rs. 78,195 at 5%. Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by assessee, for the reasons that the alleged stock discrepancy so arrived at was due to the stock kept together for certain processing as dealer and its sister concerns were functioning in one and the same place of business.Held: The authorities had not recovered any slips or anamath records to substantiate that there were actual suppression of turnover liable to tax. It was also found that the stock discrepancy was only due to mingling up of material goods of assessee with that of their sister concerns, which was also duly pointed out by Inspection Officer at the time of inspection. At the later point of time, Revenue could not raise the issue and assessee have also produced purchase notes, stock register, etc., for substantiating the same and convincing that alleged stock discrepancy so arrived at was due to the prescribed stock kept together for certain processes at their sister concerns. Thus, Tribunal rightly found that there was no stock discrepancy. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2019 TaxPub(VAT) 0460 (Mad-HC) : (2020) 092 ITPJ (V) 0208

State of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. M. Parvathi Trading Company

TAMIL NADU VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2006

--Assessment--ValidityStock discrepancy--Suppression of facts--Where stock discrepancy was only due to mingling up of material goods of assessee with that of their sister concerns, which was also duly pointed out by Inspection Officer at the time of inspection, however, assessee produced purchase notes, stock register, etc., for substantiating the same and convincing that alleged stock discrepancy so arrived at was due to the prescribed stock kept together for certain processes at their sister concerns, therefore, Tribunal rightly found that there was no stock discrepancy.--AO in his assessment order determined a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 4,82,375 against the reported total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,18,525. Commissioner modifying the order of AO, ordered to delete the equal addition for probable omission, i.e., Rs. 1,03,730 at 5% and also ordered to confirm the actual stock difference for Rs. 1,03,730 at 5%. In respect of estimation on corresponding purchases, the equal addition for Rs. 78,195 was ordered to be deleted and the actual purchase suppression is confirmed for Rs. 78,195 at 5%. Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by assessee, for the reasons that the alleged stock discrepancy so arrived at was due to the stock kept together for certain processing as dealer and its sister concerns were functioning in one and the same place of business.Held: The authorities had not recovered any slips or anamath records to substantiate that there were actual suppression of turnover liable to tax. It was also found that the stock discrepancy was only due to mingling up of material goods of assessee with that of their sister concerns, which was also duly pointed out by Inspection Officer at the time of inspection. At the later point of time, Revenue could not raise the issue and assessee have also produced purchase notes, stock register, etc., for substantiating the same and convincing that alleged stock discrepancy so arrived at was due to the prescribed stock kept together for certain processes at their sister concerns. Thus, Tribunal rightly found that there was no stock discrepancy.