2010 (4) TMI 992 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reopening of assessment - Held that - No hesitation to accept the submissions made by Mr. Sonpal appearing on behalf of the respondent/Revenue that the respondent had reason to believe that the petitioners knowingly furnished incorrect information to the authority for the assessment period April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000. So far as the contention raised by the petitioners that the respondent failed to produce the necessary documents as per letter dated March 10, 2008 is concerned, the same has become academic since all these material particulars are now made available to the petitioners. In the present case though the petitioners produced on record some of the documents along with their affidavit dated March 25, 2010 showing that the C forms issued by their purchasers are of genuine parties, but failed to produce any document to show that by which vehicle the goods were transported from their factory because the chart given in the foregoing paragraph prima facie shows that the vehicle numbers mentioned on invoices were in respect of two-wheeler bikes. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Concealment of sales.
2. Inter-State movement of goods.
3. Submission of bogus C forms.
4. Barred by limitation for reassessment.
5. Burden of proof on the Department.
6. Failure to provide documentary proof by the Department.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Concealment of Sales:
The petitioners were accused of concealing sales for the period 1999-2000. Specific instances were cited where the sales reported were significantly lower than the actual sales as per bank statements:
- Sale to M/s. Venues Chem was reported as Rs. 54,72,946, but the actual sale was Rs. 1,18,00,000.
- Sale to M/s. Sainath Petro Pvt. Ltd. was reported as Rs. 1,83,52,863, but the actual sale was Rs. 2,10,09,586.
- Sale to M/s. Siddhanath Ind. was reported as Rs. 54,93,575, but the actual sale was Rs. 94,05,000.

2. Inter-State Movement of Goods:
The petitioners were alleged to have used bogus vehicle numbers for inter-State movement of goods. The vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices were found to be of scooters, motorcycles, and open-delivery vans, which are incapable of transporting petroleum products.

3. Submission of Bogus C Forms:
The petitioners were accused of submitting bogus C forms from various entities:
- M/s. Laxmiputra Chemox Inds., Karnataka for Rs. 11,94,334.
- M/s. Gurudeo Chemox Inds., Karnataka for Rs. 11,07,474.
- M/s. Black Diamond Petrochemicals, Gujarat.
- M/s. Abindo Paint Chem Inds., West Bengal for Rs. 54,09,369.
- M/s. Avon Petro Chemicals, Karnataka for Rs. 60,75,762.

4. Barred by Limitation for Reassessment:
The petitioners contended that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation. They argued that the initiation of reassessment proceedings after eight years was not permissible under Section 35 of the BST Act, 1959. However, the court held that Section 35(1)(b) allows reassessment within eight years if there is reason to believe that the dealer has concealed sales or knowingly furnished incorrect returns.

5. Burden of Proof on the Department:
The petitioners argued that the burden of proof lies on the Department to prove that the C forms submitted were bogus. They claimed that all transactions were conducted through cheques and that the C forms were received from genuine purchasers. The court, however, noted that the Department had provided sufficient prima facie material to justify the reopening of the assessment.

6. Failure to Provide Documentary Proof by the Department:
The petitioners contended that the Department failed to provide the necessary documentary proof despite their request. The court found that the material particulars were eventually made available to the petitioners and that the sufficiency of the material is not required to be looked into in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned notices for reassessment were based on substantial material information and allegations that required investigation. The court found that the Department had reason to believe that the petitioners had furnished incorrect information and that the reassessment proceedings were initiated within the permissible time frame under Section 35 of the BST Act, 1959. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →