TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee to prove by acceptable evidence that it had sold the goods sales tax paid and nowhere it has been proved that even for said turnover the assessee was able to prove that it was sales tax paid. Insofar as the penalty is concerned, in my view, the same is not sustainable for the reason that it is a case of reassessment and admittedly the original assessment was also passed by the AO after examining books of account and other material and it cannot be said that the original assessment was completed without examining the books of account and other material. Admittedly it is not a case of self assessment u/s 23 without calling the assessee but was a scrutiny assessment after examining books of account and the same material has been used aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and deleted not only the tax but consequent thereto interest and penalty which was assailed by the Revenue before the Tax Board, who however reversed the findings of the DC(A) and upheld the finding recorded by the AO. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that invariably the buyers come from outside the State and they approached the assessee and the assessee sold goods in the State of Rajasthan and once the same was sold in the State of Rajasthan, no occasion arose of holding the same to be inter State sale. Learned counsel contended that the original assessment was completed after analysing the books of account and complete bills and vouchers and no discrepancy was noticed by the AO assessing originally and nothing material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porter 7, Saraswathi Agencies v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench) Chennai Another [2009] 21 VST 200 (Mad), Laduram Ramniwas v. State of M.P. Others [1996] 102 STC 240, M/s. Parikh Agencies, Kanpur v. The Trade Tax Officer, Sector-V, Kanpur 1996 UPTC 261. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Revenue contended that it is a clear cut case of wrong particulars having been filed by the assessee at the time when the original assessment was completed and only during the course of survey this material discrepancy was noticed and, therefore, the Revenue was well justified in reopening of the assessment. Learned counsel also contended that admittedly huge turnover is shown by the assessee and only turnover to the extent of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, on examining the books of account and once a new material has come on record, the Revenue can always reopen the cases and it cannot be said that it is change of opinion. 9. Insofar as the levy of tax is concerned, the view of the Tax Board appears to be just and proper inasmuch as it was for the assessee to prove by acceptable evidence that it had sold the goods sales tax paid and nowhere it has been proved that even for said turnover the assessee was able to prove that it was sales tax paid. 10. I am also convinced with the reasoning given by the learned counsel for the Revenue, which has been taken note of earlier, and as per Notification no.F.4(14)FD/Tax Div./98-16 dt 9.7.1998 there was liability of payment @ 4% which has rightl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
