9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd has been raised on the following grounds: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl. Basis of demand Turnover Corresponding No. involved tax levy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) By treating part of transactions Rs. 300,00,00,000 Rs. 24,00,00,000 claimed to be branch transfers amounting to Rs. 693,94,58,065 as inter-State sales. (2) Diversion of goods to stock yards/ Rs. 2,07,46,345 Rs. 16,59,708 B.S.O. treated to be inter-State sales. (3) Transfer of stock to sister plant. Rs. 52,23,03,424 Rs. 4,17,84,273 (4) Declarations not produced and/or Rs. 78,67,70,582 Rs. 28,69,08,760 defective declarations produced. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After taking note of payments of Rs. 3,83,091 made in excess of the admitted tax, the total demand as aforesaid has been raised. 2.. The petitioner had moved the ACST for stay of realisation of the extra demand during pendency of the appeal. The stay application was disposed of by the said authority directing payment of Rs. 45 crores. The matter was carried in revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 34-C of 1991-92, to the effect that the movement was not in pursuance of any contract, and in order to ascertain the actual facts situation the matter has been remanded to the assessing officer. (ii) Even if it is conceded for the sake of argument that the transactions were inter-State transactions, the assessee was entitled to an opportunity to produce declaration forms to avail concessional rate of tax. Reliance is placed on a decision of the apex Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 60 STC 301. On production of declaration forms the total tax effect would be substantially reduced. (iii) Declaration forms covering transactions of Rs. 2,73,23,573 were produced before the assessing officer but unfortunately he did not take note of them and additional tax effect is Rs. 10.93 lakhs. (iv) The Commissioner has come to an erroneous conclusion that due and proper opportunity was granted for production of forms. (v) Considering large volume of materials, specific prayer of the petitioner made to the assessing officer to visit the branches was turned down without any justifiable reasons. The Commissioner should not have held that sufficient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised as the matter is pending in first appeal. 6.. The apprehension of the petitioner is that it is being given a rough deal and the appeal would not be heard and decided in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the assessee-petitioner will co-operate in the hearing so that the appeal can be disposed of early. An objection is raised by the opposite parties to the suggestion that the appellate authority should visit all the branches for verification of records. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transactions run to several hundred crores and the documents are voluminous, and it may even require racks to bring them for production at Rourkela. The learned counsel for the opposite parties stated that it is the obligation and duty of the petitioner to produce it. We feel the objection is too technical. A true and fair assessment of the tax liability of a person is to be made. If the circumstances so warrant, there is no bar either for the assessing officer or for the first appellate authority in visiting the business premises of the assessee for verification of records. In fact at the time of inspection, the officers and/o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declaration forms which relate to tax demand of about Rs. 27.94 crores have been produced before the first appellate authority at the time of consideration of the stay application. According to the learned counsel for the opposite parties mere production is not sufficient to obtain relief in appeal. He has referred to the conclusion of the Commissioner and has indicated several dates to show that about eight adjournments were granted to the petitioner. Number of adjournments is not always sufficient to conclude that due and proper opportunity was granted. Grant of earlier adjournments cannot be a ground to refuse prayer for a subsequent adjournment, because the prayer for adjournment has to be considered on its own merits on the date when prayer therefor is made. If good and sufficient reasons are shown, fresh adjournment may be granted notwithstanding the earlier grant of adjournment on large number of occasions. In a case where the transactions covered under the declaration forms are large in number, and are to be collected from various sources, adjournments by a few days may not be sufficient. Suppose in a given case, assessee wants time to collect large number of forms from par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
