9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner. However, this is clearly a scheme of evasion of tax practised by the petitioner and the brand name holder. This is a fit case for considering penalty on the petitioner as well as on the brand name holder for attempting evasion of tax. However, on account of the officer's diligence, evasion has not taken place because he made assessment by invoking section 19B. In the circumstances, probably, the assessing officer did not consciously invoke penalty provisions against the petitioner and the third respondent. In view of the above findings, the impugned order is upheld and the original petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. - - - - - Dated:- 14-12-2007 - RAMACHANDRAN NAIR C.N. , J. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR J. Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority is satisfied that a dealer has, with a view to evade the payment of tax, shown in his accounts, sale or purchase of any goods at prices lower than the prevailing market price of such goods, it may estimate the value of each goods, on the basis of the prevailing market price and assess or reassess the dealer to the best of its judgment, after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary and after affording the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) The provision of sub-sections (2) to (4) of section 19 shall apply to the assessment or reassessment under sub-section (1). The contention of the petitioner is that section 19B provides for assessment of actual sale proceeds received, and there is no justification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner at the factory itself to the brand name holder or at least consigned on inter-State sale by the petitioner to the brand name holder in Kerala for marketing the product in Kerala. This would have led to a case of first sale by the brand name holder in Kerala and payment of tax on the actual turnover. On the other hand, the petitioner helped the brand name holder to evade tax on the product by transferring goods to Kerala and by making first sale within the State to the brand name holder. In fact since goods manufactured by the petitioner were for sale only to the brand name holder, inter-State movement of goods by the petitioner to Kerala is under contract of sale and therefore sale though subsequently made is actually an inter-S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
