9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quash the same. 2.1 Petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of edible oil, registered on the file of the 4th respondent under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner effects purchases of edible oil locally as well as through import and in turn effect local sales, interstate sales, exports, stock transfer and consignment transfers in the other states. The petitioner states that its branches at Kerala are located at Palakad, Trivandrum and Calicut. During the assessment year 2012-13, the petitioner reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 490,32,35,573/- and Rs. 63,13,49,293/- under the CST act. In reporting the above turnove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suspicion on the stock transfers effected from Chennai to Kerala. Therefore, the 5th respondent proposed to revoke exemption allowed on the entire stock transfer of Rs. 91,02,94,770/- and levy tax at 5% treating them as outright interstate sales. The petitioner filed their objections stating that in most cases, the stock transfer have been effected complying with the filing of form 8F declarations and in some cases due to lack of time the transporter might have failed to comply with the mandatory filing of Form 8F. The petitioner further submitted that the goods have been physically delivered at Kerala and sold locally and taxes paid in the State of Kerala. In order to consider the claim of exemption on stock transfer, the authorities in Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments so as to claim the relief of stock transfer. Claiming that the petitioner not produced the required documents, the 4th respondent passed the impugned order dated 28.5.2015 and hence, the petitioner is before this court. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is having all the relevant documents, as submitted before the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Washermanpet II Assessment Circle, Chennai. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)-II instead of considering the same, simply rejected the claim of the petitioner, in spite of production of all the documents as directed by this court in W.P.Nos.21094 and 21095 of 2014. Hence, there is no justifiable reason for denial by the Deputy Commissioner (CT)-II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after, since the jurisdiction is vested with the Deputy Commissioner (CT)-II, the Deputy Commissioner issued a notice to furnish the necessary documents. Accordingly, the petitioner produced the same documents as produced before the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Washermanpet II Assessment Circle. Not satisfied with the said documents produced by the petitioner, stating that the documents filed by the petitioner are irrelevant, the 4th respondent has disallowed the claim of exemption on stock transfer on the ground that the documents related to the consignments were not produced. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the documents are already produced and the petitioner even now ready to produce the same, if an opportun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
