The tribunal erred in exonerating the dealer from liability without addressing the concurrent findings of suppression by the assessing and appellate authorities.

ORDER :

Mr.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

This petition has been filed to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, dated 24.09.1999, in M.T.A.No.251 of 1997.

2. The respondent is a dealer in plywoods, Fevicol and laminated sheets. They submitted total turnover of Rs.1,62,84,241/- and taxable turnover of Rs.3,29,023/- for the year 1994-1995. Subsequently, inspection was conducted by the assessing authority on 22.12.1994 and they found suppression of sale and they estimated sale suppression at Rs. 12,358/- at 8% and Rs.73,596/- at 12% based on stock difference. The assessing authority consequently, calculated the suppression and determined the total taxable turnover Rs.1,74,31,541/- and Rs.22,63,283 respectively and a penalty was also imposed u/s. 12(3) (b) of the TNGST Act 59 at Rs.3,75,726/-. It is also found during the course of the inspection that, the dealer without maintaining separate stock account and sale account and sale bills for taxable and non taxable goods, mingled all other goods and therefore, they calculated the above amount and passed the order on 30.09.1996. The said best assessment of the authority dated 30.09.1996 was challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Trichy in Appeal No. 728/1996. The appellate authority upon appreciation of the entire records and finding of the assessing authority reduced the taxable turn over and consequently, reduced the tax imposed by the assessing authority on finding that there was a suppression of some of the items. The appellate authority made a detailed discussion about each items and held that the assessee wantonly and wilfully suppressed the transactions and reworked out escape assessment as Rs.2,24,350/- and levied the penalty by order dated 28.02.1997. The same was challenged by the assessee before the Tamil Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai -20 in Madurai Tribunal Appeal No.251 of 1997 and the revenue also filed the enhancement petition. All were clubbed together and common hearing was conducted and the common order passed in Madurai Tribunal Appeal No. 251 of 1997 and Madurai Tribunal Miscellaneous petition No. 173 of 1997 and 284 of 1997. The tribunal had allowed the appeal and dismissed the enhancement petition filed by the revenue. Challenging the same the revenue filed this tax cases before this Court.

3. Thiru.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the assessing authority has held that there was material suppression and also there is no proper maintenance of separate stock account and sales account and sale bills for taxable and non taxable goods and they intentionally mingled the stocks of the non taxable and taxable goods and the assessee had wilfully suppressed transactions. The appellate authority also concurred with the said assessing authority's finding relating to the number of items and also concurred with the finding that there was wilful suppression of the transaction. But, the appellate authority reassessed the amount and reduced the taxable turnover and consequential penalty. The same was reversed by the appellate tribunal without finding any perversity in the finding of the both authorities and totally exonerated him from the liability. Therefore, the order of the tribunal is liable to be set aside.

4. The assessee admitted the inspection and also accepted the stock difference at the time of the inspection, at the place of the business and the assessee also did not maintain separate stock account and sales accounts and sales bills for taxable and non taxable goods and they mingled with all other goods. But the assessee agrued that the order of the Tribunal is correct.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Tribunal after considering the various sale bills and has held that the entries in the slips are interrelated and there is no suppression of transaction. Hence, the department has not proved the suppression with cli