Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2021 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 413 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxExemption from turnover - inter-state sale or not - Form-F declaration - false document - consignment sales or not - AO rejected the claim on inter-state movement of goods in the second round of proceedings after remand - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal placed heavy reliance on the conclusion arrived at by the Enforcement Wing Officials, who had caused an inspection of the petitioner's place of business, the statements, which were recorded from the dealer, the inspection conducted in the place of business of the broker, the statements recorded from him, to conclude that the entire dispatches made by the petitioner has to be treated as outright inter-State sales and liable to be taxed accordingly. The appellate Deputy Commissioner noted that the petitioner is in a position to show the closing stock balance available with the various agents in their accounts and if that is so, if there is transfer of goods with the agents, then the petitioner need not even show the value of stocks held with the agents in their accounts. The first appellate authority noted that though these were the observations and directions given by the appellate Deputy Commissioner, while remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer with direction to verify the Form-F declaration, the Assessing Officer failed to carry out the directions issued. After making such an observation, the first appellate authority proceeds to examine the transaction. The first appellate authority concluded that the finding of the Assessing Officer that the goods moved pursuant to an order passed by the broker has not been factually established, the first appellate authority relied on the decision in the case of STATE OF ORISSA VERSUS ROLTA MOTORS LTD. [1992 (1) TMI 319 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] - the first appellate authority once again took note of the finding recorded by the appellate Deputy commissioner in the earlier round, where a specific finding has been given regarding the role of the broker and such finding was endorsed by the first appellate authority in its order dated 15.10.1999. Furthermore, we find that the State did not challenge the order passed by the appellate Deputy commissioner in the earlier round and the State cannot be heard to say that it was only an order of remand. The order of remand was after making pointed observations and rendering factual finding and directing the Assessing Officer to verify the Form F declaration. Considering the fact situation, which prompted the first appellate authority to allow the appeal, we find that the Tribunal erroneously reversed such order by glossing over the nature of the documents, which were placed by the petitioner before the first appellate authority not only in the present round of litigation, but in the earlier round as well. That apart, the Tribunal did not advert to the findings rendered by the appellate Deputy Commissioner in the earlier round more particularly, with regard to the documentation, the nature of transaction and the role of the broker - what the Assessing Officer was did is to ignore the finding and merely acted based upon the directions of the Enforcement Wing Officials thereby abdicating its power as an Assessing Officer. That apart, as a subordinate statutory authority, the findings rendered by the appellate authority are binding on the Assessing Officer. These aspects have been ignored by the Tribunal while reversing the order passed by the first appellate authority. The order passed by the Tribunal calls for interference - Petition allowed.
|