9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated March 24, 2010, W.P. No. 15227 of 2010 filed against the identical reassessment order for the assessment year 2003-04. As both the writ petitions are filed by the same partnership against identical orders pertaining to different assessment years for identical reliefs based on identical set of facts involving identical issues, both the writ petitions are disposed of by common order. The petitioner herein is the registered dealer in papers and boards under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to, as "the TNGST Act and CST Act"). The petitioner has for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2003-04 effected transit sales to the tune of Rs. 5,10,80,073 and Rs. 1,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of assessing authority and appellate authority are now brought under judicial review before this court in these two writ petitions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the transaction of transit sales is genuinely effected and the same is evident from E1 form obtained from the original seller and the petitioner cannot be liable for false documents produced on the side of the purchaser and the petitioner has no role in production of such false documents. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch as the transaction is genuine, the question of disallowing the exemption for the transaction effected does not arise herein and the order of the assessing authority for the assessment years 2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction is not true or the petitioner is party to the act of fraud said to be committed by the purchaser, the question of disallowing the exemption already given to the petitioner for the transaction actually effected between the parties, does not at all arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also in the course of argument drawn the attention of this court to an order passed by the honourable Division Bench of our High Court in the batch of writ petitions dated December 4, 2001 in W.P. No. 10610 of 2000 and order dated July 12, 2007 in the batch of W.P. Nos. 809 to 816 of 2006. While the subject-matter of the scrutiny in the case decided by the honourable Division Bench is form 17, the document under dispute in the batch of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief being asked for to that effect. The impugned assessment orders are set aside mainly on the ground that it is for the Revenue to proceed against the purchaserdealer for any contravention of law for giving wrong declaration in the manner known to law and no penal action can be warranted against the seller-dealer. It is strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioner herein that in spite of the ratio laid down in the judgments as above referred to is brought to the notice of both the assessing authority and the appellate authority, the impugned orders came to be passed without considering the legal position. If that is so, applying the ratio laid down in the orders above referred to, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
