TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed revision cases are filed by Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a public sector oil company, challenging the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming disallowance of concessional rate of tax claimed by the company on inter-State sales of diesel and other petroleum products. The Central sales tax assessments involved are for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The C forms filed by the company for claiming concessional rate of tax on the turnover of crores of rupees were found to be defective and unacceptable. Against disallowance of concessional rate of tax made by the assessing officer, company filed appeal to the first appellate authority. After 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 100 crores are erasures, substitution and manipulations of the invoice numbers, value and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s passed after settlement under amnesty scheme will be considered with the original demand and not with reference to the balance amount paid based on amnesty scheme. We do not think there is any need for us to consider the effect of revisional orders or appellate orders issued after settlement of liability by the assessee under amnesty scheme because the same does not arise in these cases. However, since senior counsel requested us to consider the revisions on the merits, we proceed to consider the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner and the objections raised by the Government Pleader for the respondent. Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal did not exercise 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 wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in complete agreement with the contention of the Government Pleader because C forms are declarations issued by the outside State purchaser which is in triplicate and all the copies of the C form should contain the same entries and particulars and it is subject to verification by the assessing officers of the seller as well as the buyer. In other words, corrections or substitutions of figures cannot be made by the selling dealer on the two copies received by him because one copy is retained by the issuing dealer which is for production before his assessing authority. Concessional rate can be claimed by the purchasing dealer for inter-State purchases only if the goods are for resale or for 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 sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reverse side of the C form showing the total value of all the invoices at ₹ 4,90,241.76. On exposure of this C form against light, what we notice is the buyer had in fact filled up the back side of the C form giving numbers and dates of five invoices covering total value of ₹ 7,94,015 which is in fact signed by them. However, the paper pasted over it without the signature of the buyer contains only four invoices and the value was also reduced by ₹ 3 lakhs. The manipulation is obvious from this because even the buyers' seal and signature are covered by the paper pasted over it and entries in the pasted paper are not signed by the buyer. Similar is the position with C form No. TN/D 942199 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealer with counter-signature of the assessing officer of the issuing State, the petitioner should furnish full details of payments received from the purchasers covering all the disputed inter-State sales. (iii) If the petitioner proves the inter-State sales with evidence of payments received from the purchasers and also produces C forms attested and counter-signed as above, the assessing officer will verify the correctness and if found correct, accept such C forms and grant concessional rate. The S. T. revision cases are disposed of as above. The assessing officer is directed to return the rejected C forms within one month from date of production of copy of this judgment, if the petitioner confirms that they do not want to file SLP against this judgment. However, if SLP is filed, original C forms should be returned only after SLP is over or subject to orders of the honourable Supreme Court. The petitioner is granted three months' time from date of return of C forms from the officer to produce corrected copies and furnish details of payments received as above for the officer to verify and revise the assessments. However, if the petitioner cannot produce the documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
