news round up - Taxmann

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
2010] Commissioner, Trade Tax v. Alok Trading Co. (All.) 253 A B C D E F G another aspect brought to the notice of this Court is that, according to the petitioner, the ‘C’ forms were obtained from the alleged consignee at Mangalore by post. This means, after confronting with the situation, petitioner had contacted the concerned consignee and pursuant to this, petitioner is stated as supplied with the ‘C’ forms by post. When such ‘C’ forms were reached the hands of the petitioner, as mentioned already, the incriminating circumstances had already been communicated to the petitioner by the departmental authorities, despite which the petitioner 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 has been produced by the petitioner, even to show that the alleged ‘C’ forms were received by post and hence no reliance can be placed on the stand of the petitioner that, after sending the bogus ‘C’ forms, the concerned consignee disappeared from the arena. 12. In the abovesaid facts and circumstances, there is no tenable ground to call for interference. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. [2010] 1 GST 253 (ALL.) HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Alok Trading Co.* DR. SATISH CHANDRA, J. TRADE TAX REVISION NOS. 267 TO 270 OF 2008 AUGUST 25, 2009 SALE - Assessee, trading company, provided tankers to Indian Oil Corporation - Tribunal found that it was for oil company to use or not to use tankers and assessee was having no control over movement of tankers - Whether since transfer of right of property is not transfer of property, no tax was leviable on assessee - Held, yes [Section 2(h), read with section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948] *In favour of assessee. ■■ GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 129
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:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79: 202 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Re
Page 136: 260 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Re
show all

news round up - Taxmann

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?