Law and Practice : Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
Home Case Index All Cases CST, VAT & Sales Tax CST, VAT & Sales Tax + HC CST, VAT & Sales Tax - 2023 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser
2023 (1) TMI 383 - HC - CST, VAT & Sales Tax
Disallowance of branch transfer - Penalty under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- The facts on record indicate that despite, notice being issued prior to passing of order dated 21.04.1997, the first respondent assessee failed to reply to the same. Therefore, the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 27.01.1999, confirmed the revision order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.04.1997, vide order dated 27.01.1999, dismissed the appeal. Only in so far as levy of penalty, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to ascertain whether, penalty was to be levied under Section 12(3)(b) of the TNGST Act or under Section 16(2) of the TNGST Act.
The Tribunal has however reversed the order of the Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order. Reading of the order of the Tribunal indicates that it is a common order passed for three Assessment Years. There is no discussion in so far as alleged branch transfer in Bangalore. The employee of the first respondent assessee was not only a Branch Manager of the first respondent assessee but also partner of M/s.Karthik Engineering to whom the invoices were raised from the Branch in Bangalore - Mere location of the dealer in Karnataka at Door.No.36, J.C.Bose Road, Bangalore and appellants at 16-B, G.N.Lalbagh Road, Bangalore, ipso facto, would not justify a conclusion that there was a stock transfer first and thereafter a sale to the said dealer. Even then, a first sale would have taken place from a depot to the dealer in Karnataka, thereafter, a second sale from the dealer i.e., M/s.Karthik Engineering to its customer.
The order of the Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal of first respondent assessee is un-sustainable - the case remanded back to the Assessing Officer to determine the penalty is correct and was wrongly interfered by the Appellate Tribunal.