9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration certificate prior to the date of transaction with the selling dealer? 2. The brief facts are, the petitioner is a Central Public Sector Undertaking under the administrative control of the Ministry of Mines. The year of assessment is 1994-95. 3. The petitioner received goods from its factory situated outside Delhi and for the Financial Year 1994-95, the petitioner submitted 321 ST-35 Forms in support of the exemption for sale to local registered dealers. The Sales Tax Authorities rejected four ST-35 Forms. This reference relates to the following two forms: Form No. Purchasing Dealer Amount 02AA-996226 KPS Industries INR 30,23,582/- 01AA-147012 Capital Automobiles INR 8,63,848/- 4. The Assessing Authority insofar as the aforesaid two forms are concerned, was of the following view: 1- Form No. 02AA-996226 amount Rs. 30,23,582. This form has been issued by registered dealer Ward No. 92 M/s. K.P.S. Industries, 160, Okhla Industrial Complex. But as per the verification report, the dealer in his utilisation account has shown this form as given to M/s. MMTC of India Ltd. for Rs. 366031.65. 2- Form No. 01AA-147012-amount Rs. 83,63,848/- This form has been issued by re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner fell short of the requirement of the good faith since it had not cared to verify the RC and as such held the sales tax as payable. We may state here that the Tribunal has deleted the interest imposed on the petitioner. 8. Mr.Debhashish Mohapatra, Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have clearly erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner by directing it to pay the sales tax as due even though there is no fault of the petitioner in the transactions concerned. 9. On the other hand, Mr.Sushil Salwan, counsel appearing for the respondent would support the order of the Authorities and seek the dismissal of the reference. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, insofar as question No. 1 is concerned, the same relates to the form at Serial No. 1 above. In fact, a perusal of the form would show that the name of the MMTC was written on the form. Subsequently, the name of MMTC was scored off and the name of the petitioner was mentioned by putting initials. It has also come on record that MMTC in its communication to the petitioner had confirmed that no sale was made by them to M/s. KPS Industries against the subject form and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner apart from being incorrect also does not inspire confidence. It was also not the case of the petitioner because of very close business relationship with the dealer, the authenticity of the form could not be doubted. We agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the petitioner was complacent with the transaction without caring to see whether purchasing dealer was registered or not and whether the purchasing dealer was authorized to purchase goods against the statutory form. The findings of the Tribunal are also factual, based on examination of factual allegations. The said findings are cogent and reasonable. 12. Insofar as the judgment in Hari Ram Oil's case (supra) is concerned, this Court was concerned with the case, where the dealer made sale in favour of two parties namely M/s. Narender Kumar Krishan Kumar and M/s. Sunrise Lubricants. In the case of Narender Kumar Krishan Kumar, there were nine sales, totalling to Rs. 1,00,200/- while the sale in favour of the latter concern, was of Rs. 23,000/-. The dealer had obtained declarations from these purchasers and sought the benefit of exemption from sales tax in his return. The Assessing Authority however found that the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aler was cancelled on 02.04.1990. Even though, no gazette notification was issued, the ground of having seen the certificate and no gazette notification was issued are contradictory inasmuch as if the registration certificate was seen, then the same was not cancelled and no question of gazette notification having been issued arises. On facts, the judgment of Hari Ram Oil's case (supra) would not be applicable. That apart, Hari Ram Oil's case (supra) would also not be applicable to the facts of this case as no declaration in the manner taken by the petitioner in that case, was taken. We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the ratio in the Hari Ram Oil's case (supra) would not be applicable. 13. We note, this issue would be covered by the observations of the judgment of this Court decided on July 12, 2012, reported as [2003] 131 STC 372 (Delhi) Prince Plastics & Chemical Industries & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax & Ors., wherein the Court was considering one of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that the purchasing dealers should be supplied with ST-1 Forms regardless of whether such dealers have relinquished their registered status, or have c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
