Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1381 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision of assessment order - stock transfer - suppression of facts - Whether the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law and facts to uphold the evaded sales of 1524 grams 'Paclitaxel' @ ₹ 29,000/- per gram amounting to ₹ 4,41,96,000/- + excise duty ₹ 58,12,374/- = 5,00,08,374/- and to levy tax thereon @ 8% amounting to ₹ 40,00,699.92? At the time of original assessment proceedings, the assessee disclosed stock transfer of ₹ 178,56,45,444/- and also filed 254 Form 'F' to establish stock transfer. He had not disclosed the manufacture and sale or alleged stock transfer of 'Paclitaxel' during the course of original assessment proceedings. This Court specifically asked the learned counsel for the revisionist-assessee, yesterday and today also to point out from any evidence that the assessee has disclosed the manufacture and sale or the alleged stock transfer of 'Paclitaxel' during the course of original assessment proceedings - it is a clear case of suppression of manufacture and disposal of the goods in question i.e. 'Paclitaxel'. It appears that during the course of arguments before the Tribunal the assessee took the stand that the stock transferred quantity is 1050 grams instead of 1040 grams and the donated quantity is 31 grams instead of 25 grams. The Tribunal considered the entire facts and evidences on record and recorded a finding of fact that there was no stock transfer and Form F procured by the revisionist-assessee from its unit situate at Baddi, District - Solan on 24.11.2003 is merely to cover up the evasion - The Tribunal has given sufficient reasons to disbelieve the contention of the revisionist and to uphold the findings of the Assessing Authority and the 1st Appellate Authority - The assessee took a vague stand before the Tribunal merely in written argument that balance quantity of 443 grams 'Paclitaxel' has either been used in production or it is available in stock. The assessee could not substantiate his claim from the books of accounts. An analysis of the relevant provisions of the Section 6A of Central Sales Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder shows that the initial burden of proof is on the dealer to show that the movement has occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods which is otherwise than by reason of sale. The explanation of the assessee with regard to non disclosure of the alleged stock transfer of 1040 grams or 1050 grams 'Paclitaxel' during the assessment proceedings that he was under impression that the goods which are being stock transferred are not necessary to be disclosed, was found to be groundless inasmuch as perusal of the assessment order shows that during the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee disclosed stock transfer of certain other goods amounting to ₹ 178.56 crores and also filed 254 Form - 'F' in original to claim stock transfer - No legally acceptable ground has been made out by the assessee to require this Court to interfere with the findings of fact for not accepting the alleged stock transfer of the goods in question. The impugned order of the Tribunal requires no interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act 1948 - Revision dismissed - decided against assessee.
|