9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scrutinising all the defective C forms, the appellate authority found that for the year 1999-2000 defects in as many as 83 C forms were minor and, therefore, directed the assessing officer to return the C forms for correction and representation. Turnover covered by these C forms is around Rs. 36.5 crores. However, for the very same year the Deputy Commissioner found that the defects in 155 C forms covering a turnover of above Rs. 100 crores are erasures, substitution and manipulations of the invoice numbers, value and other particulars and, therefore, those defects are such as to invalidate the C forms. Accordingly he confirmed disallowance of concessional rate of tax on this turnover. So far as the next year 2000-01 is concerned, the position is exactly the same and the variation is only in regard to the number of C forms and the turnover involved. The case of the company is that the erasures, substitutions or manipulations alleged in the C forms neither exist nor are sufficient to invalidate the C forms. However, the Tribunal also did not accept the contention of the company and after verifying the C forms produced they also confirmed the orders of the first appellate authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xercise their jurisdiction properly inasmuch as they have not considered whether the defects pointed out are such as to justify rejection of C forms as invalid. The Government Pleader, however, referred to the observations of the Tribunal that they have verified the original C forms at least random and they found that the defects exist. According to the Government Pleader, the defects are not real defects, but manipulations in C forms because the petitioner erased the original invoice value written by the purchasers and substituted with their own figures. Further, invoice numbers are seen written in a separate paper and the paper is pasted in the back side of the C form substituting whatever entries that were made there. Senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Apex Traders v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1988] 69 STC 261 (All) and contended that overwriting and corrections in the C form will not justify rejection. He has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bush (India) Ltd. v. Union of India [1980] 6 ELT 258 (Bom) and in India Agencies (Regd.) v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore [2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use in manufacture or processing of other goods. In the course of sales tax assessment under the local law of the State from which C form is issued, the assessing officer is entitled to verify whether the goods purchased at concessional rate by issuing C forms were utilised for purposes declared by the dealer in the forms issued and for this purpose the quantity purchased and the purchase turnover are collected from the triplicate copy of C form retained by the dealer. In fact, correctness of sales turnover or production of goods accounted can also be checked with reference to the entries in the triplicate copy of C forms issued. So much so, in our view, the petitioner's contention that they are entitled to supplement and substitute entries in the C forms produced by them by producing confirmation letters from the buyers is rightly rejected by all the authorities and we cannot also permit it. Even though we find force in the contention of the Government Pleader that there is no substantial question of law involved warranting our interference with orders of the Tribunal which concurred with lower authorities to reject the C forms for defects apparently fatal in nature, we feel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 199 which covers 87,18,619.92 which is also issued by the same company Adisankara Spinning Mills Ltd. Here what we notice from the entries in the paper pasted on the back side of the C form is that the C form issued on March 9, 2000, is intended to cover as many as 72 consignments and the invoices are issued from April 5, 1999 to July 12, 1999. On showing C form against light, what we notice is the buyers had in fact filled up reverse side of the C form with particulars of only six transactions (invoices) and, therefore, the paper pasted and the entries thereon are not made by the buyer. Discrepancy, in our view, does exist and it is of such serious nature that without buyer signing it with the attestation of the assessing officer of the State which issued the C form, the same cannot be ordered to be accepted. In other words, what is to be ensured is that corrections or substitutions made in the C form should be in line with the corrections made by the buyer in the triplicate copy retained by him and produced before the assessing officer for assessment under the local Sales Tax Act in that State. On going through the confirmation letters issued by the purchasers, we notice that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
