2009 (8) TMI 1077 - AAAR - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the exclusion of stock transfers from turnover under the CST Act.
2. Examination of the genuineness of transactions with consignment agents.
3. Assessment of inter-State sales versus local sales.
4. Adequacy of documentation (F forms, sale pattis, way bills) to support the appellant's claims.
5. Evaluation of the Tribunal's findings and the appellant's burden of proof.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the exclusion of stock transfers from turnover under the CST Act.
- The appellant claimed exclusion of the value of stocks sent to agents in other States from the turnover computation under the CST Act. The assessing authority partially accepted this claim but disallowed a significant portion based on inquiries into the genuineness of the transactions.

Issue 2: Examination of the genuineness of transactions with consignment agents.
- Item No. 1: Sri Vinayaga Traders (Rs. 61,21,800)
- The Tribunal's rejection was based on the cancellation of the dealer's registration certificate. However, the transactions occurred before the cancellation date, and there was no evidence that the dealer was fictitious. The appeal was allowed for this item.

- Item No. 2: Ramakrishna & Co. (Rs. 5,94,320)
- The Tribunal's claim that the dealer did not exist was incorrect. The dealer might have shifted business premises, and no proper inquiry was made. The appeal was allowed for this item.

- Item No. 3: Goodluck Traders (Rs. 92,21,400)
- The Tribunal's conclusion that the agent did not exist was unsupported by the report. However, evidence suggested a possible outright purchase by the agent. The appeal was allowed for Rs. 89,76,600 and dismissed for Rs. 2,44,800.

- Item No. 4: Perumal Oil Traders (Rs. 17,15,800)
- The Tribunal incorrectly concluded the agent was non-existent. The agent had filed returns, and inquiries were not properly directed. The appeal was allowed for this item.

- Item No. 5: Balamurugan Traders (Rs. 46,25,750)
- The Tribunal found the agent non-existent, supported by reports and the absence of a valid TNGST number. The documents were manipulated, and the appeal was dismissed for this item.

- Item No. 6: Tirumalai Enterprises (Rs. 7,29,600)
- The Tribunal's report was incorrect, but the documents were manipulated to cover up inter-State sales. The appeal was dismissed for this item.

- Item No. 7: K. Ruksa/Rukshe Trading Co. (Rs. 22,80,850)
- The Tribunal found discrepancies in the dealer's name and seals, indicating fabricated documents. The appeal was dismissed for this item.

- Item No. 8: Periaswamy Oil Stores (Rs. 38,35,325)
- The Tribunal found that the dealer's business was closed, and the F form was manipulated. The appeal was dismissed for this item.

Issue 3: Assessment of inter-State sales versus local sales.
- Item No. 9: Sivasakthi Traders (Rs. 15,21,255)
- The Tribunal incorrectly concluded the agent did not exist. However, the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of stock transfer. The appeal was dismissed for this item.

- Item No. 10: Aruna Enterprises (Rs. 68,58,140)
- The Tribunal's denial was based on an irrelevant ground. The appellant had discharged the burden of proof with the F form. The appeal was allowed for this item.

Issue 4: Adequacy of documentation (F forms, sale pattis, way bills) to support the appellant's claims.
- Item Nos. 13 and 14: P.K. Kumaraswamy (Rs. 25,23,001), P. Kondaswamy (Rs. 37,85,600)
- The Tribunal's inference of non-existence was based on discrepancies in names, registration numbers, and seals. The documents were fabricated. The appeal was dismissed for these items.

Issue 5: Evaluation of the Tribunal's findings and the appellant's burden of proof.
- Item No. 16: Siddharth Trading Co. (Rs. 11,70,265)
- The Tribunal's report was unclear, and the appellant had filed the F form. The assessing authority failed to probe the genuineness. The appeal was allowed for this item.

- Item No. 24: Sri Dhana Laxmi Trading Co. (Rs. 1,12,54,805)
- The Tribunal denied relief due to the absence of original sale pattis. Relief should have been granted for the turnover supported by sale pattis. The appeal was allowed for Rs. 72,76,100 and dismissed for the balance.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, excluding a turnover of Rs. 3,27,13,020 from the taxable turnover, in addition to the relief granted by the Tribunal.

← Previous Next →