news round up - Taxmann

252 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Reports [Vol. 1
9. In the above circumstances, the petitioner was requested to furnish
details of the sales and also other necessary particulars. Accordingly, the
petitioner forwarded the documents as given at serial Nos. 1 to 5 mentioned
therein. Referring to the said admission made by the petitioner, it
has been observed by the 3rd respondent at running page 12 of Ext. P3
order that, the departmental authorities had contradicted the petitioner
with regard to the infirmities and discrepancies borne out by the records
and explanation was sought for. It is also pointed out that, as per the notice
dated 30-4-2002 issued by departmental authorities, it was informed that
the consignee was a fictitious person. It was also referred to therein that
the assessee himself had admitted that the Assistant Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, Check Post, Mangalore had intimated the fictitious
character of the consignee, as per letter dated 26-12-2001.
10. The next sequence of events is as follows: After obtaining time from the
departmental authorities for producing the ‘C’ forms, the petitioner
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 shows that, at the time of procurement of the said ‘C’ forms, the
petitioner was admittedly having a copy of the letter dated 26-6-2001 sent
by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Check Post,
Mangalore, stating that there was no consignee in the address and that it
was only a fictitious person. It was without any regard to the intimation
given by the authorities, that the petitioner 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 was got verified by the department
by sending them to their ‘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 petitioner deserved
maximum penalty and thus passed Ext. P3 order. It was after considering
all the relevant aspects covered by Ext. P3, that the revisional authorities
passed Ext. P4 and Ext. P5, upholding and confirming Ext. P3 order. This
Court does not find any tenable ground to interfere with the findings and
reasoning of the departmental authorities, which is perfectly within the
four walls of the law.
11. In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited
the attention of this Court to the fact that the petitioner had already filed
a private complaint against the misdeeds of the consignee, invoking the
provisions under sections 190 and 200 of Cr. P.C, as borne by Ext. P6 before
the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Aluva, which was forwarded for
investigation by the Police under section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. It is also
conceded that, the petitioner did not file any protest complaint when the
police, after investigation chose to refer the matter; nor did choose to file
appropriate proceedings before the concerned Courts in Mangalore. Yet
GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 128
A
B
C
D
E
F
G