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 981 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the declaration in form ST 15 produced by the applicant at the time of original assessment can be disallowed by the revisional authority on the ground that the same had been stolen from the store of DETC, Faridabad (East)? Whether the declaration forms in question were not liable to be accepted by the revisional authority in view of the Department's instructions issued by circular No. 3623/ST dated July 28, 1976 inasmuch as the name and address of the dealer to whom the said forms were issued along with their RC No. and the official seal of the Department had been affixed thereon, which particulars were required to be filled up by the Assessing Authority issuing the said forms and on the basis of which the petitioner was entitled to presume that the said declaration forms must have been issued by the concerned Assessing Authority to the dealers who had furnished the same to the petitioner? Whether in view of the law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. reported as [1986 (3) TMI 297 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] the applicant had discharged its onus by producing the declaration forms in question and the revisional authority therefore could not reject or disallow the same? Whether the revisional authority had exceeded his powers of suo motu revision under section 40 of the HGST Act by making independent enquiries in the matter and taking into consideration material which was not before the assessing authority at the time of framing the original assessment order? Whether the revisional authority could exercise powers of suo motu revision in a case where reassessment under section 31 of the Act had become time-barred by making independent investigation and taking into consideration material which was not before the assessing authority, thus indirectly passing an order of the reassessment which it could not have done directly? Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, suo motu revision under section 40 of the HGST Act has become time-barred? Whether the revisional authority could validly exercise powers of suo motu revision under section 40 of the Act on a reference made by the successor-assessing authority? Held that:- The finding recorded by the revisional authority clearly is that the declaration forms were not genuinely obtained. The dealer had failed to satisfy itself that the purchasers were registered dealers. In such circumstances, inference could be drawn that goods were transferred in some other manner and shown as sale to registered dealers. The findings concurrently recorded by the revisional authority and the Tribunal having not been shown to be perverse, the question that the decision arrived at is legal, cannot be held to be untenable. As regards non-compliance of rule 21 with regard to circulating the loss of forms, even if this information was not circulated, it cannot be held that the dealer's claim for deduction from the taxable turnover on the ground of sale being to registered dealer was established. Questions 1 to 3 have thus to be decided against the dealer. As a consequence thereof, question 4 has also to be held against the dealer. As regards question 5, the revisional order being permissible under section 40, mere fact that the reassessment was not permissible, did not affect the jurisdiction of the revisional authority. Question 6 has not been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner. As regards question 7, the revisional authority had suo motu power. Merely because reference was made by the assessing authority did not take away the jurisdiction to exercise suo motu jurisdiction. The said question is answered against the dealer.
|