9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lthough the dealer was entitled for concessional rate of tax in respect of purchase of R.F.O., it is not in dispute that it issued the form claiming total exemption from payment of tax. It is also not in dispute that the dealer-applicant purchased R.F.O. without paying any tax on such transactions. A notice under section 3B of the Act was issued by the Department on the ground that up to the month of October 1991 it purchased R.F.O. to the tune of Rs. 18,75,851.69 by issuing such form IIIB claiming total exemption. In reply to the show-cause notice issued by the assessing authority, the applicant came out with the case that although it was entitled for partial exemption from payment of tax on such purchases but due to mistake of its employe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the applicant-dealer was a "recognition certificate holder" and was entitled to purchase refined furnace oil on payment of concessional rate of tax. It is also not in dispute that the applicant has issued form IIIB against the purchases made by it to the Indian Oil Corporation mentioning that it is entitled to total exemption of tax. Obviously, the dealer-applicant wrongly mentioned in forms IIIB that its purchases are totally exempt from tax. It may be noted that the matter was heard by this court earlier and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the purchases of refined furnace oil and represented to it that it is entitled to purchase refined furnace oil and such purchases are exempt. This being the admitted position, whether Indian Oil Corporation has paid the tax or not is wholly irrelevant. Even otherwise, under section 3B of the Act the applicant's liability to pay the difference in the tax by way of penalty, is very much there. It cannot avoid its liability for its own wrong. So far as the argument that there is no column in form IIIB to state as to whether the purchasing dealer is entitled to purchase the raw material at concessional rate of tax or whether such purchase is exempt, is concerned, it will not make any difference on the facts of the present case i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aler to state whether recognition certificate entitles him to full exemption or to partial exemption. In that case it was found as a fact that the dealer had correctly filed the required details, which is not so in the present case. In the present case, as stated above, the dealer had mentioned that he is entitled to full exemption, which is not correct. In the case of Willard India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1999] UPTC 1117; [1999] 15 NTN 752. there was a mistake in the recognition certificate and the dealer having acted on that basis it was held that levy of any amount under section 3B of the Act was not justified as the declaration was neither "false" nor "wrong". On the facts, the case is distinguishable as in the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
