TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s with regard to receipt of the goods, sale Patti of the Arhatis and assessment orders passed by the concerned Assessing Authority in respect of such Arhatis. Some other documents were also directedto be produced. The dealer, however, produced only dispatch advice and dispatch Register in which number of the G. R. and Transport Company were mentioned. No other document was produced. According to the list furnished by the dealer in respect of 22 Arhatis through which consignment sales were made, the amount of sale was disclosed to be ₹ 21,28,64,164/- but at the time of assessment consignment sales through only 15 Arhatis were shown and the sale consideration disclosed was ₹ 20,77,06,662/-. The dealer did not produce sale Patti of such Arhatis. Besides this there was discrepancy about the number of Arhatis and the sale consideration in respect of each Arhati disclosed at the time of assessment. Another ground on which the consignment sales were rejected was that in previous years on verification some of the Forms-F produced by the assessee were found to be stolen from the office of the concerned Assessing Authority or the same were not issued to the Arhatis who had furnis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission of Shri Bharatji Agarwal is that Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act provides for two requirements viz declaration in Form-F and evidence of dispatch. In the instant case both the conditions/ requirements of law have been complied with. It is further submitted that so far as Rule 4(4) of the Rules framed in U. P. under the Central Sales Tax Act is concerned, the compliance of the same is not mandatory and it is only directory. Reliance is placed upon 1996 (98) STC (102); 1997 NTN (Vol. 10) 404 ; 1997 STI 225. It is also submitted that the dealer is entitled to the benefit of only those consignment sales in respect of which list was furnished before the Assessing Authority on 5-5-97 along with relevant Forms-F. Shri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel has, however, submitted that in the monthly returns higher sales were disclosed but at the time of final assessment the stand was changed and hence, information was sought from the revisionist and he was required to show compliance of Rule 4(4) of the Rules framed in U.P. under the Central Sales Tax Act. 8. As regards Trade Tax Revision for the assessment year 1996-97 the submission of Shri Bharatji Agarwal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the case may be, and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of those goods was so occasioned shall be on that dealer and for this purpose he may furnish to the Assessing Authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit, a declaration, duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority, along with the evidence of dispatch of such goods. (2) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied after making such inquiry as he may deem necessary that the particulars contained in the declaration furnished by a dealer under sub-section (1) are true, he may at the time of, or at any time before the assessment of the tax payable by the dealer under this Act, make an order to that effect and thereupon the movement of goods to which the declaration relates shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have been occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale. Explanation- In this Section, Assessing Authority in relation to a deal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed it was held that there is no responsibility of the selling dealer who accepts Forms-3A to make enquiry if the Form is genuine or is not being misused. 10. In M/s. Bharat Iron Stores vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1994 UPTC 130 it was held that - the liability of the selling dealer who accepts Form 3-A is only to check them to ensure that there is no defect on them which can be reasonably detected by an intelligent person. It is not his duty to ensure by all possible means that the Form is genuine or is not being misused. A dealer can not be expected to consult a document expert or to send the certificate to the S.T.O., who issued the same, for verification before accepting the same. Any such things would make in the Act placing specifically or by necessary implication, such a burden on the selling dealer indicates that the Legislature had no intention to do so. In the present cases the finding of the authorities below merely is that the dealers who purchased the goods from the revisionist are not registered in the offices from where the forms in question were issued and that those forms were not issued to them .......................................... There is also nothi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment advanced was that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the re-assessment order ignoring the denial of purchases by the Delhi Dealer. The Court held that there is no substance in this submission. A perusal of Form-F would show that it contains a declaration from the purchasing dealer to the effect that the goods, the details of which are given in the form, were received by him and were duly accounted for. The aforesaid Form-F is prescribed under Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax Rules read with Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act ..................................... 14. The Tribunal has rightly held, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, that if the purchaser who had issued Form-F to the assessee had not entered the goods in his account books then the assessee can not be held responsible for the same. Further the re-assessment was not liable to be sustained in absence of any other evidence to prove that the assessee had not effected the sales against Form-F to the said purchaser. 15. The case of Raza Textile Limited (Supra) in my view, is not relevant for deciding the controversy in hand. 16. From the above discussions it is abundantly clear t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. If procedure for discharging the burden under Section 6A is provided under that Section, a rule which is inconsistent with the provisions contained in that Section can not be given effect to on the ground that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act (Central Sales Tax Act). It appears from perusal of the judgment in Dhandapani's case (Supra) that under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, Rule 26(5A) was framed and the same rule was adopted as Rule 4(3A) of the Rules framed under the Central Sales Tax Act. The State Rule 26(5A) of the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules and Rule 4(3A) framed by the Tamil Nadu State under the Central Sales Tax Act are in pari materia, the same as the Rule 4(4) of the Rules framed in U.P. under the Central Sales Tax Act. While dealing with Rule 4(3A) of the CST (TN) Rules the Madras High Court held that- The question as to whether Rule 4(3A) of the CST (TN) Rules is mandatory or directory and whether failure to comply with the same renders the dealer liable for penal consequences and also whether it deprives him from claiming and proving that the transaction is not an inter-state sale but it is only a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th regard to consignment sales can not be rejected on account of non-compliance of Rule 4(4) of the Rules framed in U.P. under the Central Sales Tax Act. 21. So far as the discrepancy pointed out by the Assessing Authority between monthly returns and final assessment concerned, the same has been properly explained by the dealer and the claim of consignment sales in the assessment year 1994-95 is being claimed only in respect of sum of ₹ 18,69,22,495/-. No defect in Forms-F furnished in respect of these consignment sales was pointed out by the Assessing Authority. One of the grounds on which the consignment sales were not accepted was that the Forms-F filed by the dealer were found either to have been stolen from the concerned office of the Assessing Authorities or not to have been issued to the Arhatis from whom the consignment sales were made. As already pointed out above there is no finding that the forms were not issued or they did not bear the signatures of the Assessing Authority of the State where consignment sales are said to have been made. In the absence of any material creating doubt about the genuineness of the Forms-F bearing signatures of the Assessing Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly directory and not mandatory. If the same was not complied with and there was ample evidence of dispatch of goods accompanied by Forms-F the nature of the sales as consignment sales could not be doubted and the same could not be held to be inter-State sale. Therefore, merely because compliance of Rule 4(4) framed in U.P. under the Central Sales Tax Act was not observed, the consignment sales claimed by the assessee can not be treated as inter-State sale unless there was some defect pointed out in the notice said to have been served upon the dealer. In Trade Tax Revision No. 837 of 2001 decided by me vide judgment and order dated 4-12-2001. I had held that from a bare reading of the provisions of Section 7(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Rule 41(8) it is clear that in case the Assessing Authority is of the view that the return furnished by the dealer is not correct or is incomplete the Assessing Authority is required to give the dealer a reasonable opportunity of proving the correctness or completeness of the return submitted by him. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act provides that subject to other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
