Assessment on intercepted tanker load of crude palm oil billed as RBD palm oil as second sale. Petitioner produced no documents to prove second sales or oil contents despite burden under Section 10. Court confirmed Tribunal's order sustaining assessment and penalty for wilful suppression.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:MHC:3578
W.P.No.17721 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.17721 of 2008
and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Tvl. Venkateswara Trading Co., rep. by its Proprietor A.G.Ramesh, 34/3/1, Vellore Main Road, Arcot, Vellore District.
.. Petitioner
vs
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in T.A.No.297 of 2005 dated 1.4.2008 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against facts of the case.
1/6
W.P.No.17721 of 2008
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kaarthick for Mr.K.Soundararajan For Respondents : R1- Tribunal Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, Government Advocate for R2, R3
ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
The petitioner challenges an order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 01.04.2008 confirming the concurrent findings in the orders of assessment and first appellate authority in regard to the assessment of turnover of a sum of Rs.3,05,600/-.
2/6
W.P.No.17721 of 2008
3/6
W.P.No.17721 of 2008
interests of completion and clarity, we extract below, the relevant portion of the impugned order:-
“7. The point for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the assessment made on the turnover of Rs.3,05,600/- and penalty of Rs.20,646/- confirmed by the first appellate authority is sustainable or not? 8. It is seen from the records that the appellant was originally assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs.69,59,912/- and Rs.25,73,548/- respectively in the proceedings dated 23.5.2003 for the year 2002-2003 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Their place of business was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officers on 11.2.2003 and they noticed excess stock of sun flower oil for Rs.26,852/- and RBD Palm Oil for Rs.5680/- and deficit stock of Groundnut Oil to the tune of Rs.4150/- totalling to Rs.36,682/-. On that basis, the Assessing Officer had added three times addition for probable omissions and estimated the turnover at Rs.5,11,423/-. At the time of vehicular check conducted by the Roving Squad on 10.4.2002 it was noticed that the appellant had transported one tanker load of crude palm oil to the tune of Rs.3,05,600/- whereas the bill was issued for RBD Palm Oil to one Tvl.Venkateswara Refineries, Vellakoil, Erode District covered by Bill No.8 dated 10.4.2002. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer revised the assessment under Sec.16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and levied penalty thereof. Aggrieved against the above order, the appellants have preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vellore, who in turn partly modified and partly dismissed the appeal for the reasons stated thereon. Against the above order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Tribunal.
9. The only dispute involved in this appeal is that the sale of crude oil was to the tune of Rs.3,05,600/-. The only contention of the assessee is that goods transported was only refined oil and not crude palm oil and the product concluded by the assessing officer without proper verification is not correct.
10. The contention of the Revenue is that the sale of crude palm oil under transit was not covered by purchase bill to the tune of Rs.3,05,600/-. The
4/6
W.P.No.17721 of 2008
assessee's contention is that it is only refined oil and therefore, there is no need to levy tax.
11. On perusal of the records it is seen that if it is a refined oil, there is no need to transport it the refinery company and there would not been supply of refined oil to the Refinery Company. The physical verification of the goods transported in the vehicle was made by the Roving Squad Officers and it revealed transport of crude palm oil only. From this it is very clear that from Arcot to Vellakoil only crude palm oil alone has been transported for the purpose of refining. From this, it is very clear that the appellant had sold tanker load of crude palm oil to Tvl.Venkateswara Refineries, Vellakoil, Erode District since it is not exempted item. Therefore, the contention of the assessee can not be accepted. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the first appellate authority in this regard to that effect.”
under Section 16(2) (d) in view of the wilful suppression which has been established. We agree.
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[A.S.M., J] [G.A.M., J] 15.10.2024 Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes ssm
5/6
W.P.No.17721 of 2008
DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J. and G. ARUL MURUGAN.,J.
ssm
To
W.P.No.17721 of 2008
15.10.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the turnover of Rs.3,05,600/- representing transported crude palm oil was correctly assessed and penalty levied for suppression.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Tvl. Venkateswara Trading Co., rep. by its Proprietor A.G.Ramesh
The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, rep. by its Secretary
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Fort Round, Vellore
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Arcot, Vellore District
Anita Sumanth
G. Arul Murugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
