9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He has challenged the order of assessment dated July 26, 2006. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner states that the petroleum products were supplied by the Indian Oil Corporation, Chennai and the payment was made by way of demand draft. He has received C declaration forms as per section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act in order to avail the concessional rate of tax at four per cent, as petrol, diesel and other lubricating oils are taxable at 11 per cent at the point of first sale. Based on the purchase orders placed by the petitioner, the seller, viz., the Indian Oil Corporation, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, despatched the petroleum products to the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have obtained C declaration forms from the respondent and issued to the seller, viz., the Indian Oil Corporation, Chennai. If no C declaration forms were filed by the petitioner, the seller would charge higher rate of tax at 30 per cent and the price of the petroleum products will be more compared to others. For the assessment year 2002-03, the petitioner has filed the monthly returns along with the tax and finally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch works out to Rs. 21,52,231. After raising huge dues, the respondent has communicated the same to the seller, viz., Indian Oil Corporation Limited and requested them not to supply petroleum products, in view of the arrears. Being aggrieved by the revised order of assessment dated July 26, 2006, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as per the original notice dated April 26, 2006, the petitioner was directed to submit its objections before July 24, 2006. Thereafter, the respondent issued a revised show-cause notice by letter dated July 14, 2006, in which, more purchase details were included. But the time for submitting the objection was not extended. The petitioner had been requesting the seller, viz., the Indian Oil Corporation to furnish details, such as movement particulars, payment particulars and C declaration forms to prove that the goods were actually received by the petitioner. Since the assessing authority did not extend the time, the petitioner could not get the abovesaid details and file their objections in time. The learned counsel for the petitioner further subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,75,296.29 and Rs. 6,63,73,369.29, respectively by the respondent in his proceedings in 201529/2002-03 dated May 4, 2004 under section 18(1) of the PGST Act, 1967 and exempted turnover of Rs. 21,01,927 for the assessment year 2002-03 on May 4, 2004. The verification of the purchase details from their vendors, viz., the Indian Oil Corporation, Chennai, revealed that the dealer had understated the purchase turnover for the assessment year 2002-03. On detecting the escaped turnover, the respondent has proposed to revise the assessment and accordingly, notice under section 18(1) of the PGST Act dated April 26, 2006 for levy of tax on the escaped assessment for the year 2002-03, was issued. In response to the said notice, the petitioner has submitted his reply on May 5, 2006, requesting the respondent to furnish invoice-wise purchase details for verification. Invoice-wise purchase details were furnished on July 15, 2006 and it is evident from those details that there were more purchases than what was stated in the earlier notice dated April 26, 2006. Therefore, the earlier notice dated April 26, 2006 was superseded and a revised notice dated July 14, 2006 was sent to the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In that context, the court held that the assessee, an aggrieved person, should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the persons, who had given statements against him. In Sri Mahalakshmi Trading Company v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore reported in [1984] 57 STC 53 (Karn), on the basis of materials collected from the third parties, a raid was conducted in petitioner's premises. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that the assessee ought to have been communicated with full particulars of the materials proposed to be used against him. In a similar case in State of Tamil Nadu v. Sri Rajalakshmi Colour Company reported in [1995] 99 STC 154 (Mad), a Division Bench of this court held that an assessee should be given an opportunity to crossexamine the third parties. The above reported judgments do not apply to the facts of the present case because in all these cases, on basis of materials and statements obtained from third parties, raid or vigilance inspection were conducted. In the instant case, on verification of purchase materials obtained from Messrs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, it was found that the petitioner had understat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
