9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent herein accepted the claim of the appellant only partially and in respect of a major part of the turnover attributable to consignment agents, the claim was disallowed based on the inquiries made about the genuineness of the transactions. The claim of the appellant was disallowed in respect of the turnover of Rs. 22.78 crores and the same was subjected to tax at the rate of 10 per cent in the absence of C forms. On appeal filed before the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on a turnover of Rs. 4.76 crores and dismissed the appeal in respect of fourteen items covering a turnover of Rs. 5.63 crores. The Tribunal also remanded the case to the assessing authority in respect of a turnover of Rs. 77.42 lakhs. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in so far as it rejected the appellant's claim of stock transfers to the agents outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, the present appeal has been filed. The rejected part of the turnover consists of transactions with fourteen consignment agents of Tamil Nadu who were either found to be non-existent or denied the transactions or the returns filed by the agents did not reflect the sales of edible oil. The asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection of his changed business place was done. Hence, the appeal is allowed on this item. Item No. 3: Goodluck Traders (turnover involved Rs. 92,21,400) The Tribunal referred to the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Enforcement Wing (ISI), Chennai dated January 12, 2001 in which it was stated that no such business is functioning at the address . In the next sentence, the report states that the monthly returns of Goodluck Traders in Manali Assessment Circle were verified and it was found that they did not effect any sales of vanaspati nor paid tax under the TNGST Act during 1999-2001. For the year 2000-01, they submitted nil returns up to November 2000 and claimed exemption on the entire turnover. After referring to the report, the Tribunal makes a bald observation that on perusal of the departmental inquiry, it is noticed that the agent did not exist. It is difficult to understand how the Tribunal reached this conclusion on the basis of the report which categorically referred to the returns filed by the dealer up to November, 2000. The transactions in the instant case were all before November, 2000. Therefore, the ground on which the Tribunal rested its conclusion is unsupport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30, 2002 was genuine. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the appeal has to be allowed in respect of this turnover. Item No. 5: Balamurugan Traders (turnover Rs. 46,25,750) The Tribunal observed that the agent-dealer did not exist. The Tribunal referred to the report of the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement Wing), Salem dated January 12, 2001 in which he reported that there was no such dealer at the given address in Salem. Enquiries were also made in Chennai, based on the information that the Tamil Nadu registration certificate number mentioned by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement, Hyderabad pertained to Chennai. The Commercial Tax Officer, Perambur Circle, Chennai, reported that no such registered dealer existed within his jurisdiction and that the registration certificate number has not been assigned to any dealer. In the reply to the notice, the appellant did not come forward with any explanation with reference to the facts alleged by the assessing authority. Even before us, no attempt has been made to rebut the above facts. No proof of receipt of monies from the alleged agent has been filed. Apart from the above, we have looked into the documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrong. However, the question is whether the appellant did business with this alleged agent. On a perusal of F form and sale patti, we have no doubt that these documents are manipulated to camouflage undisclosed inter-State sales as transfers to the consignment agent outside the State. As pointed out in the revised show-cause notice, the F form series of this dealer said to be doing business at Thiruvottiyur and that of Balamurugan Traders, Salem are the same. The F form furnished by Balamurugan Traders, which is carrying on business in a district far off from Thiruvottiyur (close to Chennai city) is KO 914069 whereas the F form furnished by Tirumala Enterprises is KO 914066. Such close proximity could not have been there. Secondly, it is clearly seen from the seal of Tirumala Enterprises on the F form that the CST number portion of the dealer's stamp is found over some writing covered with white fluid. Further, the alleged seal of the Commercial Tax Officer found in the F form of Tirumala Enterprises, and those of Balamurugan Traders, Ruksa Trading Co. and Periaswamy Oil Stores are the same and they all bear the same date, i.e., April 11, 2001. As pointed out in the case of Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (CT) (Enforcement Wing), Madurai wherein he reported that the RC No. 470874 (revised RC No. 4960426) though relates to the above dealer at Madurai, the business was closed with effect from March 31, 1995. Subsequently, the dealer had obtained new RC No. 4961385 which was also cancelled with effect from March 31, 1998 due to the closure of business. On the basis of this report, the Tribunal observed that the agent did not exist. Though the said observation is not accurate, the above report coupled with the perusal of the F form would unmistakably indicate that the appellant's version of having dealings with the said agent in the year 2000 is unbelievable. In the F form, the CST No. was given as 470874 which is the old number. The F form was purportedly issued on March 31, 2002. It bears the stamp of the Commercial Tax Office with the date of April 11, 2001. If the alleged agent continued to do business till 2002 or so, the old number would not have been there. Moreover, the pattern of round seal of CTO and the date are the same as those found on the F forms of Balamurugan Traders, Tirumala Enterprises and Ruksa Trading Co. who were within the jurisdiction of different Commerci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ler did not include the transactions in the returns filed by it is not conclusive. It is quite consistent with the fact that the dealer/agent, having received and sold the consignment of vanaspati failed to include the transactions in the return. The Investigating Officer should have verified the accounts and stock register of the dealer before drawing the inference one way or the other. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal denied relief on an irrelevant ground and the appeal on this item has to be allowed. Item Nos. 13 and 14: P.K. Kumaraswamy (turnover Rs. 25,23,001), P. Kondaswamy (Turnover: Rs.37,85,600) The Tribunal has referred to the statements of proprietor/person-incharge of the two firms made before the ACTO, Enforcement, Erode and DCTO, Enforcement, Salem, on January 6 and 13, 2001. They denied the transactions with the appellant and stated that there were no business dealings with the appellant. On the basis of this material, the Tribunal observed that the agent did not exist. Though this inference cannot be reached on the basis of above material, we come to the same conclusion for different reasons. It is seen from the letterheads of said dealers i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts filed by the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant could not give any explanation to get over these telltale facts, though specific opportunity was given for this purpose. Further, the appellant did not come forward at any stage to prove the actual dispatch and receipt of goods by the dealers concerned and the receipt of monies from them. For all these reasons, the appeal in respect of these two items is dismissed. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that before acting on the statement of the dealers, their accounts should have been checked. This contention would have made some sense if initial burden of proof resting on the appellant has been discharged by furnishing genuine and valid F forms and/or other satisfactory evidence, but the appellant did nothing except filing fake/deficient F forms and sale pattis. The appellant's claim cannot, therefore, be accepted. Item No. 16: Siddharth Trading Co. (Rs. 11,70,265) The Tribunal referred to the letter dated September 24, 2003 of the Deputy Commissioner, Thane Division, Mumbai stating that the business of the dealer was closed down three years before 2000 . The said letter of the Deputy Commissioner has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
