TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (4) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Sales Tax Act, 1956, to be removed since in the circumstances of the case it found that imposition of such penalty was not proper. 2.. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Tribunal the State of Gujarat filed application under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act being Reference Application No. 58/78 requiring the Tribunal to refer question of law to the High Court. By judgment and order dated 7th November, 1979, the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal refused the prayer for reference on the ground that the Tribunal had exercised its discretion and had come to the conclusion that there was reasonable cause on the part of the opponent for not paying the disputed amount in time. 3.. Being aggrieved by the said order of the T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uiry. (ii) On the basis of report received from the sales tax authorities of Bombay, the Sales Tax Officer at Rajkot found that the "C" forms produced by the opponent were not issued to the concerned purchasers and one of the concerned purchasers has closed its business while in the case of another his registration certificate was cancelled, and therefore, the said "C" forms could not be accepted as genuine. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee to tax the said transactions at concessional rate and has subjected the disputed sales to tax at full rate of 10 per cent. (iii) Being aggrieved by the said order of the Sales Tax Officer the opponent approached the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ahmedabad, in appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the report of the Bombay sales tax authorities did not show that the "C" forms as obtained by these dealers were never issued by any of the competent authorities to those dealers at Bombay. It was found that in the case of M/s. Pravinchandra & Co. the registration was cancelled while in the case of M/s. R. Kantilal & Co. it has closed its business. It was not the case of the sales tax authorities at Bombay that the said "C" forms were not issued to the parties and therefore it was urged before the Tribunal that the opponent, in fact, relied upon the "C" forms supplied to him by the parties since he had no reason to doubt the parties holding registration numbers. Since the said "C" forms were bona fide received and used by the opponent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Sales Tax to ascertain the facts, more particularly stated in para 13 of its judgment, and after verifying them to pass suitable order. 5.. However, it may be mentioned that the Tribunal in the course of its discussion has categorically found that the genuineness of "C" forms produced by the opponent was not in doubt inasmuch as the said "C" forms were not bogus, got-up or concocted or were not those which were not issued by the sales tax authorities at Bombay. The Tribunal also found that, in fact, the "C" forms were issued to M/s. Pravinchandra & Co. but its registration certificate was cancelled, and therefore, it could not have utilised those "C" forms. Similarly, in the case of M/s. R. Kantilal & Co. the Tribunal found that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oked that the Tribunal was exercising its revisional jurisdiction. The Tribunal has, in fact, given reasons for removing the order of penalty and therefore passed the order of removing the penalty. Firstly, the Tribunal has found that the "C" forms produced by the opponent were not bogus or fake in any manner in the sense of having not been issued by the sales tax authorities at Bombay. Secondly, the Tribunal has also found in the course of its reasoning that the two dealers of Bombay who furnished to the opponent the "C" forms were in fact registered dealers. The registration of one of them was cancelled while another dealer stopped its business. Impliedly, therefore, the Tribunal accepted those two dealers were genuine purchasers. The ....