9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alcutta and branch office in Ludhiana. It is a registered dealer both under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act in the State of Punjab. The petitioner made sales to M/s. B.K. Steels and M/s. B.K. Electroplating Works, Ludhiana, in the months of March and April, 1992. The firms to which the goods were sold were also registered firms under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. Declarations in form ST-XXII were issued by the two firms in favour of the petitioner in respect of sales effected by the petitioner-company in March/April, 1992. The premises of the petitioner was raided on December 30, 1992. On January 4, 1993, respondent No. 3 passed order annexure P-1 cancelling registration certi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the sales were genuine and misuser of registration certificate has not been proved, and in the absence thereof, registration certificate could not be cancelled. According to the learned counsel, these were not the purchases made by the petitioner on the strength of registration certificate. Learned counsel in support of his contention, placed reliance on Amir Chand Sethi Sons v. Assessing Authority [1973] 31 STC 229 (P H) and M.K. Trading Company v. State of Punjab [1974] 34 STC 237 (P H). It was also argued by the learned counsel that the observations made to the effect that "apart from this there may be other heavy sales made to other registered dealers which the department has still to consider " in the order annexure P-3 were totall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The registration certificate was cancelled. The contention raised was that cancellation of the registration certificate on the ground that sales were made to bogus dealers, was not tenable because the sales were made to registered dealers and whose registration certificates had not been cancelled. Thus, after noticing that the decision in Amir Chand Sethi's case [1973] 31 STC 229 (P H) does support the contention and that the department did not challenge the same, it was observed: "of course, if the registration certificate could be cancelled because the sales were made to bogus dealers, the position would have been different. It may have been different if this ground was relevant, but, in view of the decision in Amir Chand Sethi's case [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts of the two firms again cannot lead to an irresistible conclusion that the sales made by the petitioner were bogus sales. It may very well be that the purchasing dealers may have got duplicate set of accounts books as the account books produced by these firms did not reflect relevant purchases, it can be an act of sheer inadvertence or the like. From the above narration it cannot be concluded that the sales made by the petitioner were bogus and not genuine. For the acts of negligence of other dealers, the petitioners could not be held liable. Cancellation of registration certificate under section 7(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act on a mere allegation, without proof was not justified. The petitioner could be assessed and dealt with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
