9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , during this period, a consignment of motor cycles of the appellant-company sent from Faridabad to its Gaziabad and Secundrabad depots, was checked at Sales Tax Check Barrier (STCB), Faridabad and it was found that the appellant had shown the Inter-State Sales as branch transfers with a view to evade the tax due to the State. Vide order dated 15.09.1990, the Checking officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 02,14,985/- under section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act (in short CST Act') read with section 37 (6) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1975 (in short HGST Act'), which was on remanded by the JETC (A) was reduced to Rs.1,94,051/-, vide order dated 28.03.1994. Detailed verifications were made from Ghaziabad and Secundrabad Depots regarding stock transfers from Faridabad. As a result of these verifications, the appellant-Company revised these two returns on 17.02.1991 by converting excess stock transfers into Inter-State Sales and paid tax due according to the revised returns. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (DETC) thereafter, imposed penalty of Rs.29,00,000/- and Rs.27,00,000/- under Section 9 (2A) of the CST read with Section 48 of HGST Act for the first t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supra), the dealer filed the first quarterly return for the period 30.06.1975 to 30.07.1975 showing a turnover of Rs.1,86,596/- relating to tractors, on which the tax due of Rs.5516.20 was deposited by the dealer on 30.07.1975. The dealer then filed a revised return on 30.10.1975 showing turnover at Rs.4,86,596/- and deposited the different of tax amounting to Rs.9180/-. The dealer was issuing order of penalty under Section 48-A of HGST Act. However, the appeal was allowed and it was held that false accounts were not maintained nor the sales were suppressed. Only the return was wrong, which was rectified by filing fresh return. In Khosla Mills case (supra), the dealer had filed appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge. The dealer was imposed penalty by the Assessing Authority to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- for filing false return under Section 10 (7) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act wherein the dealer has argued that mens rea has to be established by the department before imposing the penalty. The question which was to be examined that whether in view of the terms of the contract between the dealer and the commissioner agent in their course of transaction, it was the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (142) STC 135 wherein this Court was dealing with a case filed by State. The Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana referred the following substantial questions for the opinion of the Court:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty u/s 48 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 ? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in inferring deliberateness in filing the third quarterly return by ignoring the explanation of the petitioner? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confusing the words 'withholding' with the words 'evasion of tax' and was right in law in upholding the penalty when the turnover for the whole of the year as returned by the petitioner in the return of paddy has been accepted and the assessment made for the whole of the year?" (In the original reference order as well as statement of case sent to this Court, the Tribunal has, by mistake used the word "concluding" but with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have read the word "confusing" instead of the word "conclud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressed the purchase of paddy valued at Rs. 9,20,554 and knowingly did not pay the tax due as per the requirement of Section 25(3) before filing the third quarterly return. The admission made by the petitioner's representative before the Assessing Authority that the particulars of purchases were suppressed and the tax was not paid because of the financial stringency leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioner had deliberately acted in violation of Section 25(2) and (3) of the 1973 Act and thereby made itself liable for penalty u/s 48. We may add that if this Court is to accept the plea, like the one set up by the petitioner as bona fide, then in all cases, the assessees would suppress the particulars of sales and purchases, refrain from paying tax due and then take similar defences. 24. Before parting with this aspect of the matter, we consider it proper to notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal I, and Another Vs. Anwar Ali, in some detail. The respondent was a partner in the firm M/s. Haji Sk. Md. Hussain Md. Jan of Calcutta. While making assessment for the year 1947-48, the Income Tax Officer discovered an undisclosed bank account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of Sub-section (2) of Section 25 and Section 47 is applicable to the cases in which the dealer fails to pay tax due as per the requirement of Sub-section (2A) or Sub-section (3) of Section 25. Neither of these provisions are applicable to a case, like the present one in which the assessee knowingly filed false return and suppressed the purchase made with a view to avoid payment of tax as per the requirement of Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the 1973 Act." This judgment is directly applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case, a consignment of motor cycles destined to Ghaziabad and Secunderabad Depots were checked at STCB, Faridabad and a penalty was imposed under Section 9 (2A) of the CST Act read with Section 37 (6) of HGST Act, 1973. The verification regarding stock transfer to Ghaziabad and Secunderabad Depots from Faridabad was also made. The assessee admitted the certain branch transfer in the original return as inter state sales. The dealer filed revised returns for first and second quarter showing an enhanced turnover of interstate sales and paid additional tax. It is not in disputed that the assessee filed the returns late on 17.02.1991 in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
