2020 (3) TMI 1094 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - opportunity to cross-examine denied - difference on account of certain inter-state transaction reflected in the return as well as the details available from the check post - presumption of certain facts - Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act - HELD THAT - Pith and substance of the facts revealed, which are not being mentioned again in order to avoid repetition would reveal that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses. In case the other evidence which has been sought are not produced, the petitioner can always derive the benefits of provisions of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. Provisions of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act enables the authority or the court to presume existence of certain facts. The petitioner can always take the benefit of such provisions at the relevant point of time by making submissions in an appropriate forum and competent authority but not through the process of this Court, as it appears to be a adoption of a dilatory tactics. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order issued by Assistant Commissioner under Central Sales Tax Act for alleged inter-state transaction discrepancy.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash an order issued by the 3rd respondent/Assistant Commissioner regarding a significant difference in an inter-state transaction under the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner denied involvement in the transaction and alleged foul play by dealers in Tamil Nadu. Despite requests for proper investigation and details of the transaction, the 3rd respondent failed to take action, claiming the consignors were outside Kerala.

The petitioner further requested summoning of relevant persons for cross-examination, as per Sections 81 and 82 of the Act. Various notices and communications were exchanged, including a request to the Circle Inspector of Police and hearings with individuals related to the transaction. The 3rd respondent postponed hearings and issued further notices, leading to cross-examination of witnesses revealing involvement of a middleman named Mr. Jamal.

The petitioner urged for strict action against Mr. Jamal and the traders involved, but the 3rd respondent proceeded to pass the assessment order (Ext.P16) projecting that cross-examination opportunity was provided. The petitioner contended that the order was unsustainable and sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

After hearing both parties, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's submission. It noted that the petitioner had been given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and could benefit from Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act if additional evidence was not produced. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that seeking relief through the Court seemed like a dilatory tactic, and the petitioner could utilize relevant provisions at the appropriate forum and competent authority.