2009 (9) TMI 899 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the assessee had failed to prove that the goods have suffered tax in the hands of the dealers and accordingly demand was raised on the petitioner? Held that - The assessee, viz., the petitioner having submitted himself before the authorities and contended on merits with regard to the submission of form No. 32, now cannot, at the revisional stage contend that by non-submitting of the intelligence report the right of the revision petitioner is prejudiced, more particularly, when the opportunity was available at all points of times and not made use of. In fact even on merits with regard to form No. 32, the assessing authority has found that he himself has visited and has investigated the genuineness of the dealers who is said to have issued form No. 32 filed by the revision petitioner and after making cross-verification has come to the conclusion that they are bogus in nature and no such dealers are available at the addresses mentioned in the invoices. In fact the discussion made by the Tribunal at paragraph Nos. 6 to 9 is a complete answer by itself to the grounds now urged by the revision petitioner. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment based on lack of documentary proof of payment to suppliers.
2. Dismissal of appeal by Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
3. Appeal before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal regarding lack of opportunity and intelligence report.
4. Revision petition under Karnataka Sales Tax Act challenging previous decisions.

Analysis:
1. The initial issue revolves around the assessment conducted due to the lack of documentary proof of payment to suppliers by the assessee, a dealer in furniture. The assessing authority raised a demand on the petitioner after intelligence authorities reported discrepancies in purchases from certain dealers. The assessing authority concluded that the assessee failed to prove tax payment by the dealers, leading to the demand raised on the petitioner.

2. The assessee appealed before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, contending that the assessment was based on the intelligence report not provided to them. However, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the dealers issuing form 32 declarations were found to be non-genuine by the assessing authority. The appellate authority upheld the assessment order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. Subsequently, the assessee appealed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, reiterating concerns about lack of opportunity and the intelligence report not being furnished. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to the pre-assessment notice or file objections, and therefore, dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal highlighted that the petitioner's failure to address the issues earlier precluded them from raising these contentions later.

4. In the revision petition under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, the petitioner reiterated arguments made before the appellate authorities. The petitioner contended that they were under the impression that the suppliers had paid the tax, as indicated in form No. 32. However, the court found that the petitioner did not challenge the proposition notice or seek the intelligence report earlier, rendering these contentions invalid at the revision stage. The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that the petitioner had the opportunity to address the issues but failed to do so, and upheld the previous decisions.