Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 85 (MAD)

RAJESWARI AND CO. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU.

2010-01-06

D.MURUGESAN, P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

body2010
JUDGMENT D. Murugesan :- The revision petitioner is carrying on business in the purchase and sale of copra as well as he manufactures coconut oil and oil-cake. The petitioner filed returns for the assessment year 1984-85 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and disclosed a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 2,66,164. During verification of the records by the enforcement officers, the partner of the firm gave a statement that he did not effect any inter-State purchases and hence he did not account for the purchase in the accounts. Hence, the petitioner was requested to produce the connected sale bills copies received from the check-post for verification. On perusal of the said records, it was found that the petitioner has accounted for the other inter-State purchases of copra except two items in respect of the bill Nos. 3/36 and 6/24 dated April 14, 1984 and January 10, 1985. Hence, a penalty under section 16(2) was imposed for the wilful failure to disclose the taxable turnover in the returns and accounts for the year 1984-85. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, viz., the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who rejected the same on July 12, 1995 and the further appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Tribunal was also rejected on September 21, 1998. Hence, the petitioner filed the tax case revision before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in the year 2002 and thereafter it was transferred to the file of this court in the year 2006. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is the case of the Department itself right from the assessing officer that the copras were purchased by the petitioner from other States and not within the State. If that be so, according to entry 6(viii) of the Second Schedule to the TNGST Act, coconut (copra) is liable for tax only at the first purchase in the State and not otherwise. In view of the facts of the case, there is no tax liability on the petitioner and therefore the proceedings impugned in the petition must be set aside. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondent. In view of the facts of the case, there is no tax liability on the petitioner and therefore the proceedings impugned in the petition must be set aside. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondent. As per entry 6(viii) of the Second Schedule, for the purchase of copra, tax would be levied at the point of first purchase in the State and if the same is purchased from other States, the tax would not be levied under the said entry. Nevertheless, in our considered opinion, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise that ground at this point of time. The assessment relates to the year 1984-85. The assessment order was made on November 30, 1989. The petitioner has not raised this ground even when notice was issued before the final assessment order was made. Further, even before the first appellate authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal this point has not been taken. In fact, the Appellate Tribunal has passed orders on September 21, 1998, nearly 12 years before and the petitioner has not chosen to raise that ground before the Tribunal. Further, even in the grounds of present revision, this ground has not been raised. Of course, this court would certainly come to the rescue of the person, who has approached this court for fresh consideration on question of law. We are not inclined to apply the same yardstick in the present case for more than one reason. There is abnormal delay of more than 25 years in raising such ground before this court and such delay would affect the revenue in tax matters, if this court allows fresh consideration of such question of law. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the tax case revision. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not advanced any other arguments for our consideration. Accordingly, we find no merit in the tax case revision. The tax case revision is dismissed. No costs.