Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (1) TMI 802

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee against ST-XXII forms to seven registered purchasing dealers were rightly disallowed under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948? 2.. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty was leviable under section 10(7) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948?" The facts which are significant to determine the question of law raised are discernible from the orders of the Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority, order dated October 30, 1992 of the Tribunal and the statement of facts. The original assessment for the assessment year 1982-83 in the case was framed by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana on December 6, 1983 by raising an additional demand of Rs. 1,09,717 by rejecting the claim of the dealer th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the account books. On October 22, 1986, he produced cash book and ledger but no purchase and sale bills were produced from which it could not be verified to whom the goods were delivered, whether the sale bills were signed by the purchasing dealer or not and whether the delivery of goods was actually effected or not. The dealer was further confronted with the signatures of Shri Rakesh Singla partner of one of the purchasing dealers, namely, M/s. Rakesh Enterprises, Ludhiana (RC 32100) on STI form which he had filed at the time of grant of registration certificate and the signatures appended by him on ST-XXII declaration form. The signatures of Shri Rakesh Singla, partner, on both the documents differ. On issuance of notice, Shri Inderjit, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rations (ii) denied sales to them or (iii) did not exist. The appellant has failed to adduce evidence to substantiate its claim during the lengthy proceedings before the lower authorities. I find no force in the argument that the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the buyers by the Assessing Authority. In fact, efforts were made to do so but the buyers were not traceable. In this situation the appellant should have himself made efforts to produce them before the Assessing Authority with its account books to support the claim and get deductions. This was not done apparently because the transactions in all these cases were fake and invalid. ST-XXII forms were procured to legitimise the fake sales in collusion with the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... epresentations made by such a purchaser to him. According to the learned counsel the legal obligation of the seller is to satisfy himself that the purchaser is a registered dealer and the goods purchased are specified in his certificate. He has insisted that there is no other duty cast on the seller. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals Ltd. [1966] 18 STC 222. He has also submitted that facts and circumstances of this case are such that the dealer was entitled to cross-examination and therefore the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of deduction on sales under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act made by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sale and purchase bills. There is further evidence on record showing that authenticity about the transaction could not be verified as to how sales were effected, to whom the goods were delivered, whether sale bills were signed by the purchasing dealer or not, whether delivery of goods was actually effected or not. The dealer was confronted with the signatures of one Shri Rakesh Singla on the ST-I form which Shri Rakesh Singla had filed at the time of registration of his firm, namely, M/s. Rakesh Enterprises, Ludhiana. The signatures on the registration certificate did not tally with the ST-XXII declaration form submitted by the dealer. We are further of the view that the requirement of subjecting seven purchasing dealers to cross-examinati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates