2015 (4) TMI 76 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Evasion of tax - Enhancement in turnover of assessee - Held that - Assessing authority has given detail reasons based on evidences on record including own documents of the applicant, with regard to the evaded purchases and sales. Brief facts in this regard have already been noted above. The Assessing Authority has relied upon the figures disclosed by the applicants at different stages. The Assessing Authority has also found that the applicant-assessee has not maintained register in Form-XLI under Rule 56(9) of the Rules. - applicants also could not point out any ground in the appeal filed before the first appellate authority that the findings as aforenoted with regard to figures disclosed before the Additional Commissioner and the Assessing Authority and the statement given, are incorrect or the findings recorded in this regard are perverse. The applicants have also not filed their audited balance sheet and trading results to demonstrate financial hardship in depositing even 20% of the disputed amount of tax. Prima facie I find that the Assessing Authority has given sufficient reason to come to the conclusion of evaded purchases and sales. Prima facie, I also find that sufficient basis has been given by the assessing authority to determine the quantum of evaded purchases and sales. The appeals against the assessment orders are pending before the first Appellate Authority and as such in these revisions only a prima faice case can be looked into. This Court is not required to go deeper into the merits of the case at this stage as it may affect the decision on merit in the appeal pending before the first Appellate Authority. On consideration of the prima facie case and the fact that no documentary evidences of financial hardship are available on record of these revisions, I do not find any error in the impugned orders of the Tribunal. - No question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal - Decided against Assessee.

Issues Involved:
Assessment of evaded purchases and sales turnover, financial hardship for depositing disputed tax, legality of Tribunal's order, stay of disputed tax amount, compliance with VAT rules, assessment orders under U.P. and Central Acts, appeals before the First Appellate Authority, quantum of stay granted by Tribunal, revisions under U.P. VAT Act, 2008, prima facie case analysis, application of legal principles, judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dismissal of revisions, direction for expeditious disposal of pending appeals.

Assessment of Evaded Purchases and Sales Turnover:
The case involved an assessment of evaded purchases and sales turnover by the assessing authority based on discrepancies found in the applicant's disclosures. The authority computed the evaded turnover at Rs. 2500 crores for purchases and Rs. 2875 crores for sales, including Rs. 5 crores for evaded interstate sales. The applicant's use of multiple Form-38 for imports raised suspicion, with discrepancies in the disclosed import figures leading to the assessment of suppressed imports. The Tribunal upheld the assessing authority's findings, emphasizing the lack of financial evidence from the applicant to support their inability to deposit the disputed tax amount.

Financial Hardship for Depositing Disputed Tax:
The applicant failed to demonstrate financial hardship in depositing the disputed tax amount, as no documentary evidence was presented to support their claim. The assessing authority's decision to demand the tax amount was based on the lack of financial documentation from the applicant, indicating a tight financial position of the company. The Tribunal's order considered this aspect while granting a partial stay on the disputed tax amount.

Legality of Tribunal's Order and Compliance with VAT Rules:
The Tribunal's order, which partially stayed the disputed tax amount, was challenged through revisions under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. The High Court analyzed the legality of the Tribunal's decision, finding that the assessing authority had provided detailed reasons and evidence to support the assessment of evaded purchases and sales turnover. The applicant's non-compliance with VAT rules, specifically regarding the maintenance of Form-XLI register, further strengthened the authority's position.

Assessment Orders under U.P. and Central Acts, and Appeals:
The assessing authority issued assessment orders under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, levying a significant tax demand on the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority challenging these assessment orders. The First Appellate Authority granted a partial stay on the disputed tax amount, which was further modified by the Tribunal through its order.

Quantum of Stay Granted by Tribunal and Prima Facie Case Analysis:
The Tribunal modified the stay granted by the First Appellate Authority, increasing it to 80% of the disputed tax amount. The High Court conducted a prima facie analysis of the case, considering the evidence and submissions from both parties. The Court found that the assessing authority had provided sufficient basis for the assessment of evaded turnover, and the applicant's failure to demonstrate financial hardship weakened their case for a stay on the tax amount.

Application of Legal Principles and Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court:
The High Court applied legal principles established by previous Supreme Court judgments, including cases like Benara Valves Ltd. and others vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. The Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the revisions filed by the applicant. The judgments of the Supreme Court in Ravi Gupta vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi, and Mehsana Dist. Co-Op. Milk P.U. Ltd. vs. Union of India were deemed irrelevant as they did not support the applicant's case.

Direction for Expeditious Disposal of Pending Appeals:
While dismissing the revisions, the High Court directed the Appellate Authority to expedite the hearing and decision on the pending appeals concerning the disputed tax amounts. The Authority was instructed to issue a reasoned order within six months from the date of the High Court's order, without being influenced by the observations made in the High Court's judgment.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the revisions, emphasizing the lack of a legal question arising from the Tribunal's order. The Court directed the expeditious disposal of the pending appeals concerning the disputed tax amounts, urging the Appellate Authority to decide the appeals promptly and in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →