Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1991 (4) TMI 399

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of such penalty was not proper. 2.. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Tribunal the State of Gujarat filed application under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act being Reference Application No. 58/78 requiring the Tribunal to refer question of law to the High Court. By judgment and order dated 7th November, 1979, the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal refused the prayer for reference on the ground that the Tribunal had exercised its discretion and had come to the conclusion that there was reasonable cause on the part of the opponent for not paying the disputed amount in time. 3.. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal refusing to make reference to the High Court the State filed Sales Tax Application No. 2 of 198 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icer at Rajkot found that the "C" forms produced by the opponent were not issued to the concerned purchasers and one of the concerned purchasers has closed its business while in the case of another his registration certificate was cancelled, and therefore, the said "C" forms could not be accepted as genuine. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee to tax the said transactions at concessional rate and has subjected the disputed sales to tax at full rate of 10 per cent. (iii) Being aggrieved by the said order of the Sales Tax Officer the opponent approached the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ahmedabad, in appeal who allowed the said appeal. (iv) The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Rajkot, thereupon, while scrutinising .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re never issued by any of the competent authorities to those dealers at Bombay. It was found that in the case of M/s. Pravinchandra Co. the registration was cancelled while in the case of M/s. R. Kantilal Co. it has closed its business. It was not the case of the sales tax authorities at Bombay that the said "C" forms were not issued to the parties and therefore it was urged before the Tribunal that the opponent, in fact, relied upon the "C" forms supplied to him by the parties since he had no reason to doubt the parties holding registration numbers. Since the said "C" forms were bona fide received and used by the opponent, it was contended before the Tribunal that there was no justification for revising the order passed by the Assistan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hem to pass suitable order. 5.. However, it may be mentioned that the Tribunal in the course of its discussion has categorically found that the genuineness of "C" forms produced by the opponent was not in doubt inasmuch as the said "C" forms were not bogus, got-up or concocted or were not those which were not issued by the sales tax authorities at Bombay. The Tribunal also found that, in fact, the "C" forms were issued to M/s. Pravinchandra Co. but its registration certificate was cancelled, and therefore, it could not have utilised those "C" forms. Similarly, in the case of M/s. R. Kantilal Co. the Tribunal found that the "C" forms were issued to the said company but the said company has closed its business, and therefore, it could n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the order of penalty and therefore passed the order of removing the penalty. Firstly, the Tribunal has found that the "C" forms produced by the opponent were not bogus or fake in any manner in the sense of having not been issued by the sales tax authorities at Bombay. Secondly, the Tribunal has also found in the course of its reasoning that the two dealers of Bombay who furnished to the opponent the "C" forms were in fact registered dealers. The registration of one of them was cancelled while another dealer stopped its business. Impliedly, therefore, the Tribunal accepted those two dealers were genuine purchasers. The record also shows that both the dealers had their business, but on registration of one being cancelled and on another cl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates