TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is sought to be pressed into service to show that the concurrent findings recorded by these three authorities on proper appreciation of the material on record is erroneous. When the check-post officer refused to act on these documents and made known to the assessee that it is not a genuine transaction and the purchaser is not a genuine person to dispel that case, material to be produced should be anterior to the said date. Material on record states that the order passed by the appellate authority in the assessment proceedings in Appeal No. CST AP 10/05-06 passed on November 28, 2005 requires re-consideration and therefore it is a fit case for the Additional Commissioner or Commissioner of Sales Tax to exercise their power under section 22A of the of the Central Sales Tax Act to revise the said order - Decided against assessee. - STRP Nos. 2, 10,11 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2013 - KUMAR N. AND MANOHAR B., JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by N. KUMAR J.- This revision petition is filed against the order passed by 1 the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal affirming the orders passed by the lower appellate authorities. The petitioner is a dealer registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department. The said opinion was confirmed on the basis of a letter given by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence) who stated that the purchaser is not a functioning unit and the business premises of the dealer was found closed. Therefore, he proceeded to pass the orders even dated November 20, 2003. In the said orders, he recorded a finding that the purchaser is not in existence in his declared address and that he is not engaged in business officially at present. No material is placed to prove their existence. The purchaser has not reported any business and therefore, a finding was recorded that the purchaser was not a genuine dealer. The transaction in question is not a genuine transaction but a bogus transaction, therefore he levied penalty. Aggrieved by the said orders of the Commercial Tax Officer imposing 3 penalty of ₹ 1,53,600, ₹ 1,84,340 and ₹ 1,07,520 the petitioner/assessee preferred appeals before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Mangalore. The Appellate Authority went into the matter in detail and on re-examination of the entire material on record and on verification of the documents held that the check- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vation made by the investigating officer stating that found nobody is carrying out S.K.O. dealings and not even a name board is in existence . On the basis of the aforesaid material, he recorded a categorical finding of fact that the purchaser has obtained registration but they have not carried on the business in the address given. The finding recorded by the check-post officer is based on legal evidence and no case for interference is made out. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee/petitioner preferred appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal on re consideration of the entire material on record and also taking into consideration the various judgments relied on held that the material on record clearly establishes that before the check-post officer, the driver of the truck admitted the offence. The material shows that the purchaser is not carrying on any business, they have not paid any tax. To rebut the same, the appellant has not produced any evidence though certificate of registration is produced, no material is produced to show that the purchaser is carrying on the business in S.K.O. All these documents are created for the purpose of deceiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration is, whether a case is made out for interfering with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the three fact-finding authorities? The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is a registered dealer both under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner under the invoices bearing Nos. 626, 627 and 628 raised in the name of M/s. Jai Bherunath Traders, the purchaser said to have sold superior kerosene oil worth ₹ 3,14,080, ₹ 3,76,896 and ₹ 2,19,856, respectively. Delivery challans are also raised. They are produced before the check-post officer on November 5, 2003 when the vehicle was intercepted. When the check-post officer wanted the assessee to show the records pertaining to the purchaser on November 6, 2003, a letter was addressed to him including a copy of the certificate of registration dated February 28, 2002 duly notarized on June 20, 2003. The said document is not in dispute. The question for consideration is whether the said purchaser who got him duly registered was carrying on the business of trading in kerosene which was purchased from the assessee. Subsequently to prove the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings proceeded on the assumption that the C form issued is a genuine document and extended the benefit to the assessee. Now, that order is sought to be pressed into service to show that the concurrent findings recorded by these three authorities on proper appreciation of the material on record is erroneous. When the check-post officer refused to act on these documents and made known to the assessee that it is not a genuine transaction and the purchaser is not a genuine person to dispel that case, material to be produced should be anterior to the said date. Except the registration certificate, nothing else is produced which is anterior to that date. Now, reliance is placed on the document which has come into existence subsequently as pointed out earlier. None of those documents infuses confidence to believe that the purchaser is a genuine person and the documents produced by him are genuine. When three fact-finding authorities have looked into the available evidence on record, applied their mind and recorded a finding of fact which we find to be correct after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, no case for interference with the said order is made out. We are sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
