9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods by some transporters. The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to afford the appellant an opportunity to substantiate its claims regarding inter-state sales. Accordingly, the Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter to the OHA for consideration and decide afresh. Similarly, the Appellate Tribunal also remanded the matter to OHA to consider the movement of goods in respect of invoice dated 20.05.2005. The question regarding levy of penalty under Section 86(10) of the DVAT Act with regard to inter-state sales was also remanded for consideration afresh by the OHA. Whether the Arbitral Tribunal had erred in not accepting that there was a clerical error in reporting the sales as ₹1,38,82 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN For the Appellant Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Subhash Chandra Garg and Mr. Hari Om Garg, Advs. For the Respondents Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Ms. Divyanshi Bansal Ms. Shilpa Singh, Advs. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 08.08.2022, passed by the Delhi Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the impugned order ) in appeal no.79/ATVAT/06 captioned M/s Lakra Oil Trading Co v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, whereby the said appeal preferred by the appellant was partly rejected. 2. The appellant has projected the following questions: a) Whether the impugned order passed by Hon ble DVAT A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , five allegations/reasons. First, that the appellant had not paid tax amounting to ₹42,604/- on sales of superfine kerosene oil (hereafter SKO ) amounting to ₹10,65,103/-. The appellant had claimed that the said sales are tax free, however, the same were chargeable to tax at the rate of 4%. 5. Second, that the appellant had reflected sales of ₹1,38,82,000/- chargeable to tax at the rate of 12.5%, however, it had calculated the tax of ₹1,72,750/- instead of ₹17,35,250/-. Thus, the tax paid was deficient by ₹15,62,500/-. 6. Third, that the invoices produced were not signed by the authorised representatives and therefore, the same contravened with the provision of Section 50(f) of the Delhi Value Add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OHA ). 11. It is the appellant s case that a liability of ₹15,62,500/- had been incorrectly raised by considering the sales turnover as ₹1,38,82,000/-. According to the appellant, there was an apparent error in reflecting the sales turnover as ₹1,38,82,000/- as the actual turnover for the relevant period amounted to ₹13,82,000/-. The appellant claims that it had also produced material to establish the same. 12. The OHA rejected the challenge and by an order dated 19.06.2006, upheld the default assessment framed by the VATO, including the levy of penalty. 13. The appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax (Appeal No.79/AVAT/06-07) for the assessment years 2005-06. However, the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant does not dispute the aforesaid finding. 18. Insofar as the tax deficiency on ₹1,38,82,000/- is concerned, the Appellate Tribunal observed that the appellant had reflected the said amount in his returns and therefore, had incorrectly reflected the output tax. The Appellate Tribunal did not accept that the OHA could have ascertained the correct turnover from the books of accounts that were produced. The Appellate Tribunal also observed that the assessee had not filed the revised returns. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant had filed a copy of the revised returns as well as the certificate issued by the chartered accountant reflecting the correct turnover, however, the Appellate Tribunal did not consider the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, as projected by the appellant, does not arise. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant concurs with the submission that the second question, whether the Appellate Tribunal had erred in sustaining the penalty under Section 86(10) of the DVAT Act does not arise. He states that there is some ambiguity in the impugned order regarding the penalty. Since it is now clarified that the penalty only to the extent of ₹42,604/- has been sustained, the second question may be ignored. 23. In view of the above, the only question to be examined is whether the Arbitral Tribunal had erred in not accepting that there was a clerical error in reporting the sales as ₹1,38,82,000/- instead of ₹13,82,000/-. 24. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
