TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as [1986 (3) TMI 297 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] the applicant had discharged its onus by producing the declaration forms in question and the revisional authority therefore could not reject or disallow the same? Whether the revisional authority had exceeded his powers of suo motu revision under section 40 of the HGST Act by making independent enquiries in the matter and taking into consideration material which was not before the assessing authority at the time of framing the original assessment order? Whether the revisional authority could exercise powers of suo motu revision in a case where reassessment under section 31 of the Act had become time-barred by making independent investigation and taking into consideration material which was not before the assessing authority, thus indirectly passing an order of the reassessment which it could not have done directly? Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, suo motu revision under section 40 of the HGST Act has become time-barred? Whether the revisional authority could validly exercise powers of suo motu revision under section 40 of the Act on a reference made by the successor-assessing authority? Held that:- T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh bearing No. 3227/ST-V dated December 4, 1993 clarifying that although the practice so far has been that lost or obsolete ST 15 forms are circulated by the concerned wing Authority through DETC to all other DETCs, but as per rules, those lost or obsolete ST 15 forms have also to be got notified in the official gazette by the Government and directing the concerned DETCs to send such cases to the office of Excise and Taxation Commissioner for publication in the official gazette besides circulation to all DETCs at their own level? (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the declaration forms in question were not liable to be accepted by the revisional authority in view of the Department's instructions issued by circular No. 3623/ST dated July 28, 1976 inasmuch as the name and address of the dealer to whom the said forms were issued along with their RC No. and the official seal of the Department had been affixed thereon, which particulars were required to be filled up by the Assessing Authority issuing the said forms and on the basis of which the petitioner was entitled to presume that the said declaration f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers had been found to be non-existent or unregistered. The company procured the declaration forms in a clandestine manner and hence there could not arise any question of collusion between the selling and purchasing dealers as the so-called purchasers never came into the picture. The goods covered by the declaration forms were, in fact disposed of by the assessee-company otherwise than shown in the declaration forms in question. The assessee-company was directed to prove the movement of goods from Hissar to Faridabad and also to produce the proof/mode of payment on October 6, 1997, but, the assessee-company did not avail of this opportunity to substantiate the genuineness of their claim by producing the documents confirming the movement of goods from Hissar to Faridabad, or showing the evidence of receiving the payment from the so-called purchasers of Faridabad. Thus, it is established beyond doubt that the company had disposed of goods in some other manner and showed the sales to the dealers who either did not exist or never purchased any goods from the assessee-company. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are as under: It is not disputed that the forms against which cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le, the furnishing of the certificate in the manner indicated raises a presumption, but as indicated before that was not the only method, a registered dealer might prove otherwise also. As noted, rule 12A first states that a sale of any goods specified in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a sale to the consumer. But this presumption will not be there if the dealer furnishes a certificate in form IIIA as indicated therein. But the question with which we are concerned in this case did not arise in the form in either of the two cases. It is not the question whether it raises a presumption or not. But the question is whether it raises an irrebuttable presumption, i.e., a presumption which cannot be rebutted by the relevant assessing authority. In other words, even if the assessee had furnished a certificate in form IIIA, and the details as stipulated in form IV, can the selling dealer be called upon to prove further how the purchasing dealer has dealt with the goods after purchasing the goods? Reference was made to earlier judgment in State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals Ltd. [1966] 18 STC 222 (SC). It was observed (page 120 in 62 STC): There, Shah, J., speaking for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecifying the goods which were to be purchased and furnished the required declaration to the selling dealer, the selling dealer became, on production of the certificate, entitled to the benefit of section 8(1) of that Act. It was of course open to the sales tax authorities to satisfy themselves that the goods which were purchased by the purchasing dealer under certificate in form C were specified in the purchasing dealer's certificate in form C. These observations as has been noted before were made in the context of the Rules and the provisions of the Central Act, which were on similar lines, though their provisions were not in pari materia. Applying the above observations to the present case, the finding recorded by the revisional authority clearly is that the declaration forms were not genuinely obtained. The dealer had failed to satisfy itself that the purchasers were registered dealers. The dealer was also failed to prove movement of goods from the place of origin to the place of destination and to produce the proof/mode of payment. The dealer was given opportunity but failed to substantiate the genuineness of its claim by producing documents showing movement of goods o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
