TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the subsequent Act, would be appealable but the appeal can be heard only on the satisfaction that a substantial question of law is involved in the case. In the present matter, the issue is not related to the merit of the matter rather it relates to non-consideration of the basic point either by the Appellate Authority or by the Revisional Authority for whatever reason, which is whether in view of the fact that the declaration in Form IX-C had been issued by the Indian Oil Corporation to the petitioner after the assessment order was passed, there can be any liability to pay tax by the petitioner. It is not the purpose of any of the taxing statutes to saddle a person with tax beyond what is provided by the same. It is evident that if Form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh Kumar Datta And Vikash Jain,JJ. For the Appellants : Mr S D Sanjay, Sr. Adv. Mr Alok Kumar Agrawal, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr Vikas Kumar, JC to PAAG ORDER (Per: Honourable Mr. Justice Ramesh Kumar Datta) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 17.7.2014 passed by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna by which the revision application filed by the petitioner, being Revision Case No.MZ-118/2007 relating to the assessment period 1999-2000, was rejected and also for quashing the order dated 24.2.2006 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur and the order dated 26.3.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 35,00,000/- and assessed the tax at ₹ 2,10,000/- and at the same time imposed the penalty of ₹ 1,300/-. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.3.2004, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, being Appeal Case No.ST/ST-13/2005-06, which was dismissed by order dated 24.2.2006 at the stage of admission on account of non-removal of defects. The petitioner could receive the declaration in Form IX-C after the date of assessment but even the said declaration did not contain the signature of the competent authority of the Indian Oil Corporation and had to be sent back to get the signature. The petitioner, therefore, against the order dated 24.2.2006 passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... got dismissed. It is also the stand of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has completely failed to consider the very basic issue that the petitioner had obtained the declaration in Form IX-C subsequently and the fact of deposit of 20% had also been placed before the Tribunal, which was referred in its order, but giving a go-by to such a relevant fact, the Tribunal has dismissed the revision application holding that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts, whereas there was no question of any suppression considering the fact that the petitioner had taken all steps in the matter both at the stage of appeal and at the stage of revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it would be uncons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revisional Authority for whatever reason, which is whether in view of the fact that the declaration in Form IX-C had been issued by the Indian Oil Corporation to the petitioner after the assessment order was passed, there can be any liability to pay tax by the petitioner. It is not the purpose of any of the taxing statutes to saddle a person with tax beyond what is provided by the same. It is evident that if Form IX-C had been produced by the petitioner before the Assessing Authority, there was no question of levy of any tax or penalty upon the same. However, the petitioner could not do so, as the authorities of the Indian OIL Corporation had failed to issue the said Form IX-C to the petitioner which is dated 25.3.2004 and had reached ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
