[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Mr.R.D.Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent dealer.
2.This Revision by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench) Madurai, dated 16.07.2004. The said appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Madurai North, dated 13.05.2003, for the assessment year 2000-2001, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In the said State appeal, the respondent dealer also filed a cross objection. The Tribunal, sustained the order and dismissed the appeal of the State, by accepting the contention raised by the dealer. The State has now challenged the order passed by the Tribunal, rejecting the appeal filed by the State as well as allowing the cross objection filed by the dealer.
3.At the time when the Tax Case was entertained, no question of law was raised and therefore, no question of law was framed for consideration and the matter was only adjourned at the request of the then counsel for the petitioner. We have perused the memorandum of grounds of revision, and find that all the contentions raised by the revenue are factual.
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant would contend that the dealer had announced prize scheme for promoting the sales and during the time of inspection, deficit stock was found and on further scrutiny of accounts, it was found that the detergents given for prize scheme were not included in the sales. Further, the dealer was not in possession of separate accounts for the prize scheme and therefore, in the absence of accounts, the deficit stock of 4242 coupons for small boxes and 6453 coupons for big boxes were estimated at the rate of Rs.225/- per box and Rs.360.40/- per box respectively, and the dealer was unable to offer any explanation for this discrepancy noticed. It is further submitted that the Tribunal, without examining this aspect had deleted the assessment, which is untenable.
5.We have perused the findings recorded by the tribunal more particularly, in para 7, wherein the Tribunal, after elaborately going through the factual aspects, recorded the finding that no actual variation in stock either in detergent soap or detergent powder had been noticed; there is no corroborative or clinching evidence to justify the addition of turnover. With regard to the number of coupons, it was pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not established that the coupons had been issued invariably in all cases, whenever the sales was effected. There was also no mention in the sales bills about the issue of prize coupons. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that in the absence of the above details, it cannot be stated that the coupons were issued to the parties whenever sales were effected to them. Further, the Tribunal held that no opportunity was granted to the respondent dealer, to explain the reasons for the difference noticed in respect of coupons found at the time of inspection.
6.The Tribunal pointed out that the proprietor of the respondent had stated that he had kept the coupons under custody for issuing the same to the customers after verification of the payment position and the coupons were found deficit at the time of inspection. Further, it was held that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the proprietor to produce the records in respect of his claim.
7.Apart from the above findings, the Tribunal had also recorded factual findings. The contentions raised by the revenue are all factual and we are of the considered view that there is no question of law arising for consideration. Accordingly, this Tax Case Revision fails and hence, it is dismissed. No costs.
To Deputy Commissioner (CT), Madurai Divison, Madurai.
.