9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued to the Assessee. It cannot be disputed that the Assessee was required to disclose in its return the value of purchases made against statutory forms which had not been utilized for the specified purposes. However the Assessee had undisputedly failed to do so - the contention that the assessment order has been passed beyond the period of limitation is without any merit. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST.APPL. 35/2015 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2016 - S.Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Ashok K. Bhardwaj and Mr Manish Kumar Hirani, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr R.A. Iyer, proxy counsel for Mr Gautam Narayan, ASC with Mr Dinesh Gandhi, Assistant Commissioner (Ward-93). ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reflecting a total turnover as ₹ 51,21,538/-. The returns filed by the Assessee were assessed under Section 23 of the DST Act and an assessment order dated 31st August, 1998 was passed resulting in a Nil demand. 3.2 Subsequently, a notice dated 9th January, 2004 issued under Section 24 of the DST Act (in Form ST-15) was served on the Assessee. The said notice indicated that the concerned STO believed that the turnover of the Assessee had escaped assessment to tax/has been under assessed/has been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it was assessable/ deduction has been wrongly made . The Assessee was further called upon to produce account registers, cash memos and other evidence for determining the current amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been misused by the Assessee had been issued by the Department and, therefore, it could not be concluded that the purchases were concealed or not disclosed by the Assessee. The Assessee argued that in the circumstances the extended period of limitation for reassessment was not available to the Revenue. The Tribunal rejected the aforesaid contention and held that the Assessee had failed to disclose whether the goods purchased against ST-1 and ST-35 forms were re-sold or used in manufacturing of goods. The Tribunal had further referred to Rule 23A of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 and held that the return filed by the Assessee did not mention the purchase price of the goods as referred to in Rule 23A(2) of the said Rules and this showe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave disclosed full particulars and, therefore, the authorities were justified to reassess the turnover within the extended period of six years from the date of final assessment order. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the original files produced by the learned counsel for the Revenue. 7. It appears that an audit was conducted by the internal audit cell of the Department and it was reported that substantial amount of purchases made against statutory forms had been mis-utilised by the Assessee. The Internal Audit Cell of the Department reported that the Assessee had declared sales of only ₹ 10.43 lacs against the total purchases of ₹ 41.30 lacs and had reflected a closing stock of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceed to determine to the best of his judgment, the amount of tax due from the dealer in respect of such turnover, and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly. Explanation :- For the purpose of this section, production before the Commissioner of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Commissioner will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of this section. 9. A plain reading of Section 24(1)(a) of the DST Act indicates that an assessment made under Section 23 can be reopened within a period of six years from the date of the final order of assessment in a case where the dealer has concealed, omitted or failed to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificate issued under rule 16 and form as the case may be, and who utilizes such goods or any part thereof not for reasons of sale but for a purpose other than that mentioned in clause (XXXIV) and (1) and clause (XXXIV-A(1) of rule 11. 10. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be disputed that the Assessee was required to disclose in its return the value of purchases made against statutory forms which had not been utilized for the specified purposes. However the Assessee had undisputedly failed to do so. In the circumstances, the Tribunal had concurred with the orders of the authorities below that the Assessee had failed to disclose fully the material particulars in his returns. 11. We find no infirmity with the aforesaid view and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
