news round up - Taxmann

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
2010] Krilax Impex Private Ltd. v. CCT (Ker.) 249 A B C D E F G with the situation, the assessee had contacted the concerned consignee and pursuant to this, the assessee was supplied with the ‘C’ forms by post. When such ‘C’ forms reached the hands of the assessee, the incriminating circumstances had already been communicated to the assessee by the departmental authorities, despite which the assessee simply chose to produce those bogus documents in support of the claim for concessional rate of tax. Absolutely no material such as postal cover or any other document had been produced by the assessee, even to show that the alleged ‘C’ forms were received by post and, hence, no reliance could be placed upon the stand of the assessee that after sending the bogus ‘C’ forms, the concerned consignee disappeared from the arena. [Para 11] In the abovesaid facts and circumstances, there was no tenable ground to call for interference. The writ petition failed and it was to be dismissed, accordingly. [Para 12] CASES REFERRED TO State of Madras v. Radio & Electricals Ltd. [1966] 18 STC 222 (SC) (para 7), Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal v. CST [1986] 62 STC 112 (SC) (para 7), Agfa Gavert India Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2001] 123 STC 108 (SC) (para 7), Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC) (para 7), Paisons v. Intelligence Officer [1992] 1 KTR 143 (Ker.) (para 7) and Karthik Electric Control v. CTO [2008] 15 VST 450 (Mad.) (para 7). N.D. Premachandran and D. Ajithkumar for the Appellant. V.K. Shamsudheen for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the penalty imposed as per Ext. P3 order, passed under section 45A of the KGST Act, which in turn has been upheld and affirmed by the second respondent in First Revision vide Ext. P4 Revision and by the first respondent, in the Second Revision, vide Ext. P5. 2. The crux of the contentions taken by the petitioner is that, there is absolutely no justification for the finding arrived at by the departmental authorities, while imposing the penalty on the petitioner, especially in view of the fact that, the petitioner/consignor/seller was not in a position to ascertain the deeds and misdeeds of the consignee/buyer situated outside the State. It is contended that, when the goods sold by the petitioner had admittedly crossed the border (inter-State sale) and when the petitioner, who originally remitted the tax at the rate of 4 per cent also cleared the differential tax as well (when the departmental authorities arrived at a finding that the ‘C’ forms submitted by the petitioner, procured from the consignee, were not genuine), there is absolutely no foundation for having imposed the punishment. 3. The sequence of events is as follows : The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of importing and selling of toiletries and fancy items, had imported some goods through the Cochin Port and they were sent to the GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 125
Page 2 and 3:
NEWS ROUND UP BILL FOR GST ROLLOUT
Page 4 and 5:
COntents STATUTES ❑ Comments of t
Page 6 and 7:
Contents iii However, in gate pass
Page 8 and 9:
Contents v [Section 15A of the U.P.
Page 10 and 11:
UTTAR PRADESH SALES TAX ACT, 1948 -
Page 12 and 13:
130 Goods & Services Tax - Statutes
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
114 GOODS & SERVICES TAX - MAGAZINE
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
174 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Re
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75: 198 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Re
Page 136: 260 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Re
show all

news round up - Taxmann

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?