Judgment :- THANIKKACHALAM, J. C. No 1027 of 1983: The department is the petitioner herein. The assessee is a dealer in hides and skins. The assessing officer found in assessment year 1974-75 that 3, 995 pieces of raw hides and skins valued at Rs. 84, 962.35 were held as closing stock at the end of the year 1974-75. Out of them, 509 pieces of raw hides valued at Rs. 6, 057 were alone considered for assessment and the remaining 3, 486 pieces were found kept under various process of tanning. By following the decision of this Court in Sadak Thamby & Co.'s case 1969 (24) STC 468 the assessing officer held that this closing stock of raw hides and skins, i e., 3, 486 pieces valued at Rs. 78, 905.15 is liable to tax at 3 per cent as falling under item 7(a) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Accordingly the assessing officer revised the assessment and levied the tax as stated above. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment made by the assessing officer. Not satisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee filed a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal pointed out that the assessing officer is justified in taxing the last purchased raw hides and at the same time he cannot again tax the same as the sale of dressed hides under item 7(b) in the subsequent year. On facts the Tribunal found that though the assessing officer has revised the assessment for the assessment year 1974-75, but, correspondingly no revised assessment was made for the assessment year 1975-76. In order to avoid this defect the Tribunal set aside the assessment and remitted back the same to the assessing officer with a direction to avoid double taxation. 2. It is against that order the department is in revision before this Court. 3. We have heard learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), who submitted that the provisions of section9 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and section5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act are not applicable to the facts of this case. 2. It is against that order the department is in revision before this Court. 3. We have heard learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), who submitted that the provisions of section9 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and section5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act are not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, it was submitted that while remitting back the matter the Tribunal was not correct in directing the assessing officer to re-do the assessment by taking into consideration the provision contained in section9 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act read with section5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 4. On the other hand, none was present on behalf of the assessee. We have heard learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) and perused the records carefully. The fact remains that in the assessment year 1974-75 out of 3, 995 pieces of raw hides and skins only 509 pieces of raw hides alone were valued and considered for assessment. The remaining 3, 486 pieces were kept under various process of tanning. The assessing officer following the decision of this Court in 1969 (24) STC 468 (L.M.S. Sadak Thamby & Co. v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) revised the assessment and in the revised assessment the sale value of 3, 486 pieces were also taxed at 3 per cent. This was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal. On further appeal the Tribunal pointed out that the assessing officer was justified in taxing the last purchase of raw hides. It also pointed out that at the same time the assessing officer cannot again tax the same as the sale of the dressed hides under item 7(b) in the subsequent year. It was found on facts that in the subsequent assessment year 1975-76 the tax was levied on the sale of dressed hides under item 7(b) of the Act. But, the assessing officer revised the assessment only in the year 1974-75 but, no corresponding reassessment was made in the assessment year 1975-76 so as to avoid tax on sale of dressed hides. In order to avoid double taxation, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, while remitting back the matter with a direction to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to re-do the assessment and avoid double taxation. In order to avoid double taxation, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, while remitting back the matter with a direction to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to re-do the assessment and avoid double taxation. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and section5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act would not be applicable to the facts of this case since there is no export in the present case. Accordingly, while we uphold the order of the Appellate Tribunal with a direction to the assessing officer only to consider the issue in the matter of avoiding double taxation as pointed out by the Tribunal. With this observation we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly this tax revision is dismissed.T.C. No 1026 of 1983: 5. In these two revisions the department is the petitioner. The assessment year involved in these revisions is 1976-77. It is seen from the assessment records that the assessee purchased tanned items of hides and skins of 10, 221 1/2 pieces from local dealers and exported them. They have also sold tanned hides and skins locally to the extent of Rs. 6, 72, 917.11 (13, 551 pieces). Out of 13, 551 pieces 1, 260 pieces have already suffered purchase tax in the hands of the dealers during the year 1975-76 - raw hides 1, 260 pieces and skins kept as closing stock as on March 31, 1976, was assessed to tax in the assessment order for 1975-76 and the purchase value of Rs. 22, 614.65. Therefore, their proportionate sale value of Rs. 61, 740 valued at Rs. 49 per piece was deducted from the sales of tanned hides (local) and the remaining sale of 12, 291 pieces to the tune of Rs. 6, 11, 177.11 was assessed to tax at 1 1/2 per cent single point as first sales of tanned hides and skins in this State. In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessment on the turnover has been made rightly by the assessing officer. 6. The assessee had a stock of hides and skins kept as closing stock under tanning and in tanned condition to the extent of 4, 200 pieces to the value of Rs. 1, 30, 344.15. In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessment on the turnover has been made rightly by the assessing officer. 6. The assessee had a stock of hides and skins kept as closing stock under tanning and in tanned condition to the extent of 4, 200 pieces to the value of Rs. 1, 30, 344.15. As the dealers have tanned these raw hides and skins and having sold them during the assessment year they are liable to pay purchase tax at 3 per cent on Rs. 1, 30, 344.15 as the last purchaser in this State. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the closing stock of raw hides and skins as well as closing tanned hides and skins have been rightly assessed by the assessing officer. 7. The assessee has purchased raw hides and skins locally and tanned them out of which the closing stock of tanned skins works out to 3, 615 1/2 pieces (export sales of tanned hides, 13, 837 pieces - purchase of tanned hides 10, 221 1/2 pieces) which were not subjected to tax as raw hides and, therefore, they are liable to pay purchase tax at 3 per cent on a turnover of Rs. 1, 03, 114.06. This assessment made by the assessing officer was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal. 8. Out of the imported raw hides and skins local sales of dressed hides were also made subject to tax. Since the assessee has not furnished any material particulars, an estimate was made to ascertain the relative turnover to be brought to tax. Following the decision in L.M.S. Sadak Thamby & Co. v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1969 (24) STC 468 (Mad.) the assessing officer has levied tax on the disputed turnover. There were also sales of hides and skins to unregistered dealers with regard to 10 pieces. The assessing officer has made an ad hoc addition for probable omission of Rs. 4, 000. In the absence of separate accounts with detailed particulars the addition was sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 9. However, on appeal the Tribunal held that once the tax was levied under item 7(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act the same goods shall not be taxed as the dressed hides under item 7(b). According to the Tribunal, this appears to have happened in the present case. 9. However, on appeal the Tribunal held that once the tax was levied under item 7(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act the same goods shall not be taxed as the dressed hides under item 7(b). According to the Tribunal, this appears to have happened in the present case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and remitted back the same with a direction to re-do the assessment in order to avoid double taxation. It is against this order to department is in revision before this Court. 10. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) submitted that while the Tribunal remitted back the assessment after setting aside the same has directed the assessing officer to follow the guidelines by this Court in the decision reported in 1991 (82) STC 355 (Azeezur Rahman and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu). It the present case there is also export of dressed hides. Unless the assessee establishes the identity of the goods, the provision of section5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act would not be applicable. This was also required to be verified. No one was present on behalf of the assessee. 11. We have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader and perused the records carefully. According to the assessee, by the procedure adopted by the assessing officer the same goods were taxed twice. According to the assessee, in view of the proviso under section9 read with section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act when the assessee purchased raw hides and skins and proceeded or converted into dressed hides and skins before export, it is not the same goods which were sold or exported. The Tribunal pointed out that when the assessee purchased dressed hides and skins and sold coloured leather then exemption under proviso to section 9 read with section 5(3) is available as both fall under item 7(b). Therefore, it remains to be seen that when the same raw hides and skins are tanned in the State and sold during the accounting year as dressed hides and skins, the same will not be taxable under item 7(b). Therefore, the assessing officer was justified in taxing the last purchase of raw hides, but, at the same time he was not aware of the fact that the same item was taxed as dressed hides under item 7(b) in the subsequent year. Therefore, the assessing officer was justified in taxing the last purchase of raw hides, but, at the same time he was not aware of the fact that the same item was taxed as dressed hides under item 7(b) in the subsequent year. The Tribunal pointed out that this has happened in the present case. It remains to be seen that the assessing officer revised the assessment in the assessment year 1974-75 and he did not revise the assessment for the subsequent year 1975-76. Therefore, according to the Tribunal there was double taxation. In order to avoid this the Tribunal set aside the assessment made by the authorities below and remitted back the same to the file of the assessing officer to re-do the assessment in accordance with law in view of the provisions contained in section9 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act read with section5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. We are also of the opinion that the abovesaid order passed by the Tribunal is in order. While upholding the order passed by the Tribunal we direct the assessing officer, while re-doing the assessment to take into consideration the principles adumbrated in the decision reported in Azeezur Rahman and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu 1991 (82) STC 355 (Mad.). Accordingly this tax revision shall stand dismissed.T.C. No. 1028 of 1983: 12. This case relates to additional tax levied by the assessing officer. The order for levying additional tax would depend upon the final assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. Therefore, as a natural corollary we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal in the matter of levy of additional tax and remit back this issue also to the assessing officer to consider the same in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.