news round up - Taxmann

248 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Reports [Vol. 1
extend the time which was granted enabling the assessee to obtain the
same from the alleged consignee. On 15-7-2002, the assessee produced
photocopies of the ‘C’ forms and subsequently, the originals were also
produced. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mangalore, vide his
letter, dated 22-8-2002, informed the department that, the alleged consignee
was not a registered dealer at all and that the department had not
issued any ‘C’ forms to the said party. This clearly showed that the ‘C’ forms
produced by the assessee were quite bogus and fabricated with intent to
avail the concessional rate of tax. In the abovesaid circumstances, the
departmental authorities issued notice imposing penalty upon the assessee
under section 45A. After considering the points raised by the assessee, the
3rd respondent passed order holding that there was a conscious attempt
to evade the payment of tax due to the Government by producing bogus
‘C’ forms; that too stated as obtained from the consignee at Mangalore,
who was never in existence. Considering the magnitude of the default
committed and the offence involved, the 3rd respondent chose to impose
the maximum penalty. On appeal, the second respondent as well as the
first respondent upheld the levy of penalty.
On writ :
HELD
It was seen from records that after obtaining time from the departmental
authorities for producing the ‘C’ forms, the assessee produced photocopies
of the ‘C’ forms on 15-7-2002 and thereafter produced the originals as well.
The ‘C’ forms were actually dated 9-7-2002 which showed that at the time
of procurement of the said ‘C’ forms, the assessee was admittedly having a
copy of the letter dated 26-6-2001 sent by the Assistant Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, Mangalore stating that there was no consignee at the
given address and that it was only a fictitious person. It was without any
regard to the intimation given by the authorities that the assessee chose to
produce the above ‘C’ forms, without conducting further enquiry or
investigation as to its credibility, thus, seeking to sustain the concession
availed of, having remitted the reduced tax at the rate of 4 per cent. It was
pursuant to this that the genuineness of the ‘C’ forms got verified by the
department by sending them to its ‘counterpart’ in Mangalore, whereupon
it was categorically revealed that the departmental authorities in Mangalore
had not issued any such ‘C’ forms. Accordingly, the third respondent
arrived at a finding that the course pursued by the assessee deserved
maximum penalty and, thus, passed the penalty order. It was after considering
all the relevant aspects covered by the penalty order, that the
revisional authorities upheld said order. There was no upholding of tenable
ground to interfere with the findings and reasoning of the departmental
authorities which was perfectly within the four walls of the law. [Para 10]
In the course of hearing, another aspect brought to the notice of the instant
Court was that according to the assessee, the ‘C’ forms were obtained from
the alleged consignee at Mangalore by post. This meant, after confronting
GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 124
A
B
C
D
E
F
G