SREE KRISHNA ELECTRICALS v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

2Copy pinpoint2. Both these cases are cases in which similar claims were made that though the assessee had purchased parts required to be put together to form wet grinder whatsoever has been sold by the assessee was not wet grinder but parts thereof. In the first case the High Court accepted the finding of the Tribunal that what had been sold was the parts of the wet grinder. In the later case the High Court found that the authorities had recorded a finding that what was sold was in fact was a complete wet grinder which was a new commodity and not merely parts thereof. ....

3Copy pinpoint3. The High Court was of the view in the present case that the later decision apply to the facts of the present case. As regards the penalty the assessee took the stand that the penalty has been imposed mechanically and there was no

p. 811 Copy page pinpoint

NADU & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] • warrant for it as the assessee had disclosed the turnover for A .._ which he had claimed exemption. The High Court was of view that there was not complete disclosure and the fact that he had disclosed the sale of what he has termed as parts does not amount to full disclosure. The assessments made in the case of the assessee were in fact the best judgment assessment B which permitted the imposition of penalty. Accordingly the writ petitions were dismissed.

4Copy pinpoint4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court should have compared the factual scenario and should have held that the decision in Suguna's case (supra) is c applicable to the facts of the case.

5Copy pinpoint5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court.

6Copy pinpoint6. We find that the authorities have factually adjudicated the issues. In S. Durai's case (supra) on which reliance was D placed by the High Court to dismiss the writ petitions is held that what was sold was in fact a complete wet grinder which was a new commodity and not merely parts thereof. The High Court has observed that the factual scenario was identical. The conclusions arrived at by the revenue authorities and the High E Court that in fact what was sold was a complete wet grinder which was a new commodity and not merely parts thereof. This · being a factual finding, there is no scope for interference in these appeals so far levy of tax is concerned.

7Copy pinpoint7. So far as the question of penalty is concerned the items F which were not included in the turnover were found incorporated in the appellant's accounts books. Where certain items which are not included in the turnover are disclosed in the dealer's own account books and the assessing authorities includes these items in the dealers' turnover disallowing the exemption G , i penalty cannot be imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside. · 8. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. N.J. Appeals disposed of. H