2019 (4) TMI 1196 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reopening of assessment - bogus Form-F - sale of Butter and Deshi Ghee - interstate sale or not - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for the revisionist could not dispute that findings recorded by the authorities below as well as by the Tribunal are findings of fact and nothing could be shown to demonstrate that the said findings are perverse or contrary to record or are otherwise not in accordance with law. Revision dismissed - decided against revisionist.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the sanction granted by the Additional Commissioner Trade Tax
2. Sustainability of the reassessment order
3. Treatment of consignment sale as interstate sale
4. Consideration of a letter regarding the registration status of dealers
5. Decision on forged Form-Fs
6. Liability of selling dealer in checking Form-F authenticity
7. Impact of subsequent letter on consignment sale validity
8. Exemption of consignment sales under Section 6-A of Central Sales Tax Act
9. Restoration of assessment order based on penalty order findings

Analysis:
1. The first issue involves the validity of the sanction granted by the Additional Commissioner Trade Tax, Noida Zone, under Section 21(2) of the Act. The revisionist argued that the sanction was ex parte and lacked an opportunity to reopen the assessment, making it vitiated. The court upheld the authority's decision as the revisionist failed to appear or file a reply, leading to the finalization of reassessment proceedings.

2. The sustainability of the reassessment order under Section 21(2) of the Act was questioned due to the absence of a prior notice served on the applicant. The court noted that the assessing authority proceeded as the revisionist did not respond, and the reassessment was completed to impose tax liability.

3. The issue of treating consignment sale as interstate sale was raised, emphasizing evidence presented by the applicant to discharge the burden of Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The court analyzed the evidence and upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the consignment sales.

4. The consideration of a letter regarding the registration status of dealers was debated. The court examined the content of the letter and its relevance to the assessment year in question, ultimately supporting the Tribunal's decision.

5. Regarding the decision on forged Form-Fs, the court evaluated the burden of proof and the Tribunal's ruling based on the evidence presented. The court found no grounds to overturn the Tribunal's decision on this matter.

6. The liability of the selling dealer in checking the authenticity of Form-F was discussed. The court clarified the responsibilities of the selling dealer in verifying the form's accuracy, supporting the Tribunal's stance on this issue.

7. The impact of a subsequent letter on the validity of consignment sales was deliberated. The court examined the evidence presented and concluded that the subsequent letter did not render the Form-F as forged, aligning with the Tribunal's decision.

8. The exemption of consignment sales under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act was disputed based on the alleged use of forged Form-Fs. The court reviewed the facts and upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the exemption status of the consignment sales.

9. Lastly, the restoration of the assessment order based on penalty order findings was challenged. The court assessed the grounds raised and found no merit in revising the Tribunal's decision, leading to the dismissal of the revision.

In conclusion, the court addressed various legal issues raised in the case, upholding the decisions of the authorities below and the Tribunal, ultimately dismissing the revision.