TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is furnished, the recipient of such declaration cannot be held responsible for any incorrectness of the details filled in by the dealer issuing such declaration. However, the same cannot be understood to mean that a declaration in Form F or for that matter any declaration form of a dealer found to be non-existent/fictitious, which is nothing but a fraud played on the State, must also be extended the benefit of a valid declaration. Yet another reason, as to why the Form F Declaration would be inadequate to claim the benefit under Section 6 A of the CST Act, once the dealer issuing the Form 'F' declaration is found to be non-existent/bogus, is also in view of the settled position that fraud vitiates most solemn proceedings . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Respondent Department. During the course of the same, it was found that the petitioners had effected consignment sales to certain Kerala dealers viz., Ragi Traders, Calicut, Babu Traders, Palghat, Tvl.Udhaya Trading Co., Calicut and Tvl.Selvam Stores, Alleppey, and they were bogus and fictitious dealers. As a matter of fact, the Kerala Sales Tax Authorities, upon investigation, reported that there were no such dealers. It may also be relevant to note that the petitioners had paid taxes to the Kerala Sales Tax Authorities in respect of the sales made by the said dealers, who were found by the Kerala Sales Tax Authorities to be fictitious and non-existent. 3. During the course of assessment, the petitioners deposed that they had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1956 is bad. To the contrary, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the said submission of the petitioners cannot be taken into account, in view of the fact that the obligation ends, only in the case, where the genuineness/ existence of the dealers furnishing the statutory declaration is not in doubt. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused materials available on record. 7. It is undisputed that the other end dealers were bogus and fictitious. The only defence that was taken by the petitioners is that they were unaware as to whether the consignment agents viz., dealers in the other States were in existence or otherwise. The said explanation is hardly satisfactory and would go to show that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not stand in the way of the reassessment of the appellant at all. The second challenge to the impugned order must, therefore, also be rejected. b) The State of Tamil Nadu v. Sri Bavani Saw Mills: The law is well settled and it is only the Purchasing Dealer, who had given the wrong declaration in question, can be proceeded against under the provisions of the Act only if the Purchasing Dealers themselves are found to be non existing or bogus, the Selling Dealer can be proceeded against. c) Rattan Steel V The State of Tamil Nadu [2013 SCC Online Mad 1873], wherein it was held that payment by cheque was inadequate and purchases prior to cancellation of registration certificate was irrelevant . It was further held as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant to refer to the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2004) 134 STC 473] : 20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton s Sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares . It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster fraud in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black s Legal Dictionary, fraud is defined as an intent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e true or false. 96. This aspect of the matter has been considered recently by this Court in Roshan Deen V. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33. Smt. Anita V. R.Rambilas AIR 2003 AP 32. Ram Preeti Yadav V. U.P.Board of High School and Intermediate Education (2003) 8 SCC 311 and Ram Chandra Singh V. Savitri Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319. 97. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (See Gowrishankar V. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust (1996) 3 SCC 310 and S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By Lrs. V. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. (1994) 1 SCC 1). 98. There is no law that only because no appeal is provided the order would not attain finality. (See Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay V. Amritlal Bhogilal Co. (1959) S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
