Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2010 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 957 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the inference drawn by the Tribunal that the appellant was in possession of the books of account and, therefore, there is no reason for them not to produce them before the assessing authority is not contrary to the facts of the case, especially when an FIR regarding the loss of books of account had been lodged on September 9, 2001 and the remanded assessment order in this matter was passed on January 13, 2005 (and not February 25, 2000)? Whether when the goods dealt in by the appellant were first point goods on which liability to tax is on first sale, then could the liability be fastened on the appellant? Held that:- Keeping in view the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in India Agencies (Regd.), Bangalore [2004 (12) TMI 372 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] there has to be strict compliance by the dealer, in order to avail of the benefit under these provisions. Rule 9 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules requires the dealer to produce a declaration in form ST-3 duly filled in and signed by the dealer selling the goods. This would clearly signify that form ST-3 has to be produced in original. No doubt, when these original forms ST-3 are lost or destroyed because of the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, he should not be punished and denied the benefit. The rule-making authority has taken care of such a situation, so that no unnecessary hardship is caused. Sub-rule (3) is specifically added to take care of these circumstances. Sub-rule (3) is an exception and if the circumstances contained therein exist, the Commissioner can exempt a dealer from furnishing original ST-3 from. However, for doing so the conditions laid down therein are to be satisfied, which are specifically incorporated in the provision. To avail of the benefit, the dealer has to necessarily seek exemption in the manner provided therein. Appeal dismissed.
|