9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities below. No explanation much less satisfactory explanation was given by the learned counsel for the appellant for submitting non-genuine 'C' Forms. The proposition of law propounded in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is well recognized, but they being based on individual fact situation involved therein do not come to the rescue of the appellant keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, the appellant cannot derive any advantage from the said decisions. - Decided against assessee. - VAT Appeal No.256 of 2014(O&M) - - - Dated:- 11-8-2015 - MR. RAMENDRA JAIN AND MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate For The Respondent : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, orders Annexures A.2, A.3 and A.5 are sustainable in law? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant is a registered dealer under the PVAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, the CST Act ) It is carrying on the business of trading in electrical and electronics goods at Chandigarh. It filed the statutory returns as also the annual return for the assessment year 2005-06. It claimed certain sales made to registered dealer in the course of interstate sale. In support of its claim, declaration in Form 'C' as given by the purchaser was also produced. The Assessing authority finalized t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r but are not sufficient to levy penalty in the absence of any additional material or further enquiry. Reliance was placed on judgments in State of Haryana vs. Inalsa Limited and another , (2011) 42 VST 192 (P H), Pahar Chand Sons vs. The State of Punjab, (1972) 30 STC 211 (P H), Anantharam Veerasinghaiah Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P.(1980) 123 STC 457 (SC), CIT, Ahmedabad vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Limited, (2010) 35 PHT 575 (SC) and The State of Madras vs. S.G.Jayaraj Nadar Sons, (1971) 28 STC 700 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. A perusal of the interest and penalty order dated 23.6.2011, Annexure A.2 shows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority to prove the genuineness and bonafide of his claim as the burden of proof squarely lay on him. It was the duty of the seller firm to produce genuine C forms when a due opportunity was afforded to him through a detailed letter confronting the person of the facts by the then assessing authority. 7. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), UT, Chandigarh upheld the penalty and interest order. However, before the Tribunal, the appellant only agitated against the penalty. The Tribunal vide order dated 1.10.2014, Annexure A.5 held that since 'C' Forms were not genuine, the penalty was imposed in accordance with the rules by the assessing authority and dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
