9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (4) TMI 984 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the production of C forms received from the purchaser which is issued by a State Government of authority would be sufficient compliance of provisions of section 8(4) of the Central Act? Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case section 8(4) of the Central Act would pre-suppose verification of authenticity of the C form received from the purchaser by the dealer? Held that - Having regard to the Scheme of the Act in the light of the principles enunciated in the decisions referred to hereinabove a dealer would not be entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of tax even if the C form submitted by him is defective. The appellant s case stands on a weaker footing inasmuch as in the facts of the present case the Tribunal has found that the C forms submitted by the appellant are not genuine. In the circumstances the appellant cannot be permitted to avail of the benefit of concessional rate of tax under the Central Act. Thus it cannot be stated that the impugned order of the Tribunal which is based upon findings of facts recorded after appreciation of the evidence on record suffers from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. No question of law as proposed or otherwise much less any substantial question of law can be stated to arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal.The appeals dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. Verification of authenticity of C forms by the dealer. Detailed Analysis: Issue I: Compliance with Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 The appellant, a registered dealer under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, challenged the Tribunal's order regarding inter-State sales for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The primary contention was whether the production of C forms received from the purchaser, issued by a State Government authority, constituted sufficient compliance with Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the appellant had effected sales to Raj Chemicals, Agra, and produced C forms for these transactions. However, upon verification, it was revealed that the C forms were not genuine. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had submitted a single C form for multiple transactions in each year without any explanation, which was irregular. Additionally, the C forms lacked specific dates and were received after a long time without any justification. The Tribunal concluded that the basic requirement of Section 8(4) was not fulfilled, as the C forms were not issued by the prescribed authority. Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of a reduced tax rate. The Tribunal further emphasized that even if the appellant accepted the C forms as genuine, they were forged documents and did not vest any right to a reduced tax rate. Issue II: Verification of Authenticity of C forms by the Dealer The appellant argued that there was no methodology to verify the genuineness of the C forms provided by the purchasing dealer. The appellant claimed to have received the C forms in good faith during routine transactions and should not be penalized for the forged forms. The appellant also contended that there was no mens rea (intent to evade tax) and thus, penalties and interest should be set aside. The Tribunal, however, held that the appellant's case was weaker because the C forms were found to be forged. It reiterated that under the Central Sales Tax Act, a dealer must furnish a genuine C form to avail of the concessional tax rate. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decisions, which underscored that a defective or false C form disqualifies the dealer from concessional rates. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had entered into numerous transactions with Raj Chemicals but had submitted only two C forms for each year, which was suspicious. The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in its findings based on the evidence and dismissed the appellant's claims. Conclusion The Tribunal's order was upheld, emphasizing that the appellant could not benefit from forged C forms. The appeals were dismissed, and no substantial question of law was found to arise from the Tribunal's order. The Civil Applications related to the main tax appeals were also disposed of accordingly.
|
