Dismissed

M/S Ved Ram Veer Singh v. the Commissioner of Trade Tax

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2019STRE/1812/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this tax revision, the court dismissed the applicant's challenge to an ex parte reassessment order imposing trade tax. The court upheld the High Court Tribunal's decision rejecting claims that Form-F declarations were genuine despite being later declared forged, holding that the applicant failed to prove perversity of the lower authorities' findings of fact.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; the impugned order of the Trade Tax Tribunal was upheld.

M/S Ved Ram Veer Singh Vs the Commissioner of Trade Tax — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1812 of 2007

¶3

Applicant :- M/S Ved Ram Veer Singh Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Trade Tax Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal,Suyash Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist, at great length.

¶6

The questions of law, which has been formulated in memo of revision, reads as under;

¶7

(i). Whether the Tribunal was correct not to consider that the sanction granted by the Additional Commissioner Trade Tax, Noida Zone, Noida u/s 21(2) of the Act, dated 27.03.2002, was an ex parte sanction and no opportunity was afforded by the Sanctioning Authority to reopen the assessment, as such sanction was vitiated and is liable to be quashed.

¶8

(ii). Whether the reassessment order u/s 21(2) of the Act dated 30.03.2002 is sustainable, since no notice was served on the applicant prior to completion of ex-parte reassessment and the same is sustainable for want of service of notice as the assessing authority could have assume jurisdiction by service of notice only u/s 21(2) of the Act.

¶9

(iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in treating the consignment sale of Butter and Desi Ghee as interstate sale specially when the burden of section 6-A of Central sales Tax Act, was discharged by the applicant by producing evidence of dispatch of Goods, Sale Note, Freight, Expenditure and Commission paid of each consignment and presentation of declaration in Form-F, which according to Rule 4(4) is not mandatory but directory.

¶10

(iv) Whether the Letter No.760 dated 21.03.2001 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, War-II, Jaipur that the two dealer of Rajshathan party was not registered as such their Form-F was forged one, without considering that letter did not disclosed the fact that those dealers were not registered in assessment year in question.

¶11

(v) Whether the order of Tribunal holding that two Form-F were forged one, in view the decision of Kanha Vanaspati Limited, Badaun vs. Commissioner of Trade tax, U.P., 2002 NTN (Vol.20) -35, when the burden of the applicant is shifted on the department.

¶12

(vi) Whether the Tribunal was correct to ignore that the liability of selling dealer who accept the declaration Form-F is only to check them and insure there was no defect which can reasonably deducted by an intelligent person and it is not his duty of ensure by all means that From is genuine or is not been misused.

¶13

(vii) Whether the Tribunal was correct to hold that the consignment sale

¶14

supported with evidence of dispatch sale note, freight, expenditure etc. held to be valid, the subsequent letter of the Commercial Tax Officer, Jaipur can render the Form-F as forged one.

¶15

(viii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct to hold that the consignment sale of Butter amounting to Rs.24,36,078/- against From F No.392497 made to M/s M.K. Enterprises, Jaipur could not be allowed as exempted u/s 6-A of Central sales Tax Act, since Form-F was forged one as Rajashthan Party was not registered, as per Letter No.1120 dated 23.03.2001 of the Commercial Tax Officer, War-II, Jaipur.

¶16

(ix) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct to hold that the consignment sale of Desi Ghee amounting to Rs.5,77812.62/- against From-F No.125598 made to M/s Ram Bhagat Agrawal and Sons, Jaipur could not be allowed as exempted u/s 6-A of Central Sales Tax Act, since Form-F was forged one as Rajashthan Party was not registered, as per Letter No.1120 dated 23.03.2001 of the Commercial Tax Officer, Ward-II, Jaipur.

¶17

(x) Whether the Tribunal was correct to restore the assessment order on the basis of the finding recorded in penalty order passed u/s 13-A (4) of the Act, whereas no such objections were raised in the commissioners grounds of second appeal.

¶18

The facts of the case are that the information was received by the assessing authority from the Special Investigation Branch of Trade Tax Department with respect of alleged consignment sale against Form-F. It is transpired that two Form F were utilised by the revisionist against which Butter and Deshi Ghee were sold to two firms which were found not in existence.

¶19

During the course of inquiry, Form-F used by the revisionist were found bogus. Based on the aforesaid, notice was issued under Section 21(2) of the Act by the assessing authority fixing the date for appearance and for reply on 30.02.2002 but the revisionist failed to appear and did not filed any reply or sought any adjournment.

¶20

Since the case was going to be time barred, there was no option available with the assessing authority but to finalise the reassessment proceeding, hence re-assessment proceedings were completed under Section 21(2) of the Act and vide order dated 30th March, 2002 the tax was imposed to the tune of Rs. 3,01,389.60 piase.

¶21

The first appeal was filed under Section 9 by the assessee before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Bulandshahr. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the assessing authority.

¶22

Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the second appeal was preferred by the revisionist before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad Bench-II, Ghaziabad. The Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad vide its impugned order dated 06.03.2007 has affirmed the order passed by the authority below and has rejected the appeal filed by the assessee.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Commissioner and perused the orders passed by the authority below and the order of the Tribunal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the revisionist could not dispute that findings recorded by the authorities below as well as by the Tribunal are findings of fact and nothing could be shown to demonstrate that the said findings are perverse or contrary to record or are otherwise not in accordance with law.

¶25

In view thereof, aforesaid questions of law are answered against revisionist.

¶26

The revision is dismissed.

¶27

Order Date :- 18.4.2019 A.Kr.*

M/S Ved Ram Veer Singh v. the Commissioner of Trade Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ved Ram Veer Singh v. the Commissioner of Trade Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sangam Construction Company Vs the Commissioner of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow

M/S Bhargawa Book Depot Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow

M/S Bhargawa Book Depot. Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax.

M/S Friends Automobiles Sumersager Vs the Commissioner Trade Tax U.P.

M/S Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Sansthan Thru Secy. Vs the Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow

M/S Allahabad Wire Drawing Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner Trade Tax