The appellate Tribunal exceeded its authority by adjudicating a matter remanded for fresh consideration without allowing proper verification of records by the Assessing Officer.

ORDER :

1. This Tax Case Revision is filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Madurai Division, challenging the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, dated 11.12.2003 in M.T.A.No.837 of 2001, relating to the assessment year 1999–2000.

2. The respondent–dealer, Tvl. Veera Associates, Madurai, is engaged in the trading of cotton yarn. On 29.07.1999, the Enforcement Wing conducted an inspection in the business premises and godowns connected with the dealer. During inspection, two slips were recovered which the officers treated as unaccounted transactions. A stock discrepancy was also recorded, and certain provisional purchase entries were not immediately reflected in the registers.

3. Based on these materials, the Assessing Officer rejected the accounts and framed the assessment on best-judgment basis. He determined the taxable turnover at Rs.5,23,25,583/- as against the declared turnover of Rs. 62,23,903/-, and imposed penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act.

4. Aggrieved by the above said order, the dealer preferred first appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Madurai (South), in A.P.No.99 of 2001. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 24.07.2001, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, with a direction to properly verify the records and afford adequate opportunity to the assessee, holding as follows:-

"The Assessing Officer may kindly be requested to recheck the accounts with materials now furnished and pass appropriate order is found in order".

The verification report submitted by the Departmental Representative has been carefully perused. The verification report revealed the fact that the appellants have dealing with one Thiru Sarof Malagoan, Maharashtra State in respect of certain consignment sales transactions effected. Further they have transactions with one Tvl.New Sarika Cotton Traders, Guntur in respect of cotton purchases. Further they have sent cotton lints to Tvl.Varadhalakshm Mills and Ayyappan Textiles in respect of which stock differences have been arrived out. But at the time of processing of the case by the inspecting officers, the appellants have furnished only a portion of the records before them and a major part of the records were not furnished before them to prove their contentions. Further for the pre- assessment notice issued, the appellants have filed their reply and it is available at P.795 of the assessment file. In the reply filed, the appellants stated that the transactions as per slips were clearly available in their books of accounts and there was no stock variation as alleged with reference to the materials sent to Tvl. Varadhaiakshmi Mills and Ayyappan Textile Mills from the Godown of Sitalakshmi Mills for further processing. Therefore, they requested the Assessing Officer to give them a personal hearing to produce the books of accounts and other related records on appointed date. But, the Assessing Officer without considering the request passed a best judgment orders. Now at the time of hearing the Authorised Representative has produced all the related records and a verification was also made by the Departmental Representative. Therefore, in order to prove their innocence of the appellants are necessarily to be given a chance to produce the related records before the Assessing Officer for his verification. Therefore, the assessment made on the actual suppressed turnover of Rs. 65,42,071.00, Rs.1,63,05,071.00, Rs.2,03,698.00 and of the equal addition of the above three turnovers and of the penalty levied at Rs.12,00,072.00 under sec. 12(3)(b) of the Act are ordered t