COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER ANTI EVASION Vs. GOODWILL PAINT INDUSTRIES
LAWS(ST)-1998-12-1
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on December 03,1998

Commercial Taxes Officer Anti Evasion Appellant
VERSUS
Goodwill Paint Industries Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.K.Nair (Technical Member) - (1.) THIS application for revision filed before the Rajasthan High Court was transferred to this Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995. It arises in a matter under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ("the CST Act") and is directed against the judgment dated July 3, 1993 in Appeal No. 36/91/ST/Alwar, of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal (as "the Rajasthan Tax Board" hereinafter, referred to as "the Board", was then known). The Board had by its impugned judgment accepted the appeal of the present non -petitioner -dealer and set aside the order of the first appellate authority dated February 23, 1990 upholding the order dated August 17, 1990 of the assessing authority (AA) made under Section 9, the CST Act read with Section 16(1)(i) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (the RST Act), inter alia, holding that certain transactions claimed by the dealer to be branch transfers were actually inter -State sales, and, therefore, levied tax under the CST Act, interest under Section 11B, RST Act, and penalty under Section I6(l)(i), RST Act. The order of the AA to that extent was also set aside.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the application for revision are that the dealer is registered under the CST and RST Acts. It manufactures thinner and spirit at its factory in Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Rajasthan. Its head office is in New Delhi. On June 22, 1988 the AA checked vehicle No. DBL 2778 at the Tabu Road Check -post, Bhiwadi. It was found to be carrying 20 drums of thinner which as per the goods receipt and the declaration in form S.T. 18C accompanying the goods were valued at Rs. 38,000 and were in the course of branch transfer to the dealer's head office in New Delhi. The dealer's salesman who was also travelling in the vehicle was found to be carrying two bills of the same date, i.e., June 22, 1988 in the name of two different purchasers of Delhi one covering five drums of thinner and the other three drums. These bills for a total value of Rs. 17,250 bore the signatures of the sales manager of the dealer's Delhi office. The salesman is said to have informed the AA that the drums covered by these bills were to be supplied directly to the parties concerned in Delhi. The AA took it that the transaction in eight of the twenty drums found in the vehicle were inter -State sales which was incorrectly and wrongfully being represented as branch transfers. At the time of checking five more bills were found with the salesman. These bore various dates and in all covered twenty drums of thinner in the name of various parties in Delhi purportedly issued by the Delhi office and were for a total value of Rs. 34,050.
(3.) THE AA subsequently checked the books of the dealer at its premises during the course of which another bill came to light which was for ten drums of thinner originally made out in the name of a purchaser in Delhi which had been overwritten to show the dealer's head office in Delhi as the purchaser.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.