9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 968 - HC - VAT / Sales TaxReopening of assessments - Classification of sale - consignment sales or not - HELD THAT - The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has produced before us the documents, which were placed before the Authorities below as well as the Tribunal namely way bills for transport of 480 bags of 40's cotton yarn transported by the first respondent to one M/s.M.L.Trading Co.(P) Ltd., Malegaon during the period from 23.12.1995 to 25.1.1996. The learned counsel has also placed before us the proof of payment of tax for the period from 01.2.1996 to 29.2.1996 with supporting documents issued by the said M/s.M.L. Trading Co.(P) Ltd. A copy of the Form F Declaration is also produced; so also the affidavit of the Director of the said M/s.M.L.Trading Co.(P) Ltd., and the challans for payment of tax, etc. The legal issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2004 (1) TMI 365 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that an order passed under Sub-Section (2) of Section 6A can be subject matter of reopening of a proceeding under Section 16 of the State Act was not correct. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order on consignment sales. Analysis: The writ petition challenged the Tribunal's order regarding consignment sales by the first respondent-dealer. The Tribunal found that the Form F Declarations were filed without defects, and the dealer provided evidence such as transport documents, proof of tax payment, sale particulars, consignment agreement, and stock statements. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court emphasized the conclusive nature of determinations made under legal fictions like Section 6A. The Court highlighted that the assessing authority must consider jurisdictional facts and that special provisions prevail over general provisions. The Court cited previous cases to support the distinction between exemptions/refunds and non-liability to tax. Referring to Sahney Steel case, the Court clarified the purpose of verifying Form F declarations to determine if the branch office acted as a conduit or the transaction was independent of the buyer's order. In conclusion, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order, dismissing the writ petition without costs.
|
