TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at Kanpur. The regional office, Kanpur is the principal place of business of the petitioners' company in U.P. and it is duly registered under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is manufacturing and selling automobile tyres and tubes. Its manufacturing units are situate at Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka. It has branches for sale of manufactured goods inside as well as outside the State of U.P. The petitioner contends that it has branches in Punjab, Delhi and Uttaranchal. For the assessment years in question, the petitioner transferred certain stock of automobile tyres and tubes from its branches inside the State of U.P. to its branch situate outside the State of U.P. The total value of the stock transferred for the assessment year 1998-1999 is Rs. 37,27,286/-. The claim of stock transfer was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings by the order dated 12th of March, 2001 passed under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer sent a proposal to the Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax for sanctioning the reopening of the said assessment order, only on the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. Non mention of the names of branches outside the State of U.P. in the registration form for registration under the Central Sales Tax Act cannot be a ground to reopen the assessment in exercise of power conferred under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts are not much in dispute. It could not be disputed by the petitioner that in the registration form, name of its branches at Punjab, Delhi and Uttaranchal were not disclosed. It was also not disputed that the claim of the stock transfer under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act was accepted by the Assessing Authority while framing the assessment order on the basis of the form F submitted by such dealers to the petitioner. We are required to consider the effect of non disclosure of names of the branches in the registration form vis a vis on the question of determination of turnover of the dealer. Submission of the petitioner is that the Apex Court has concluded the issue in the second case of Ashoka Leyland Limited Vs. State of Tamilnadu (supra). However, the respondents submitted that all the three assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 6-A merely states a rule of evidence. It says that where a dealer claims that certain goods have been moved from one State to another and that such movement has occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale, the burden of proving the same lies upon him. Besides creating the said rules of evidence, the section also sets out how the said burden can be discharged. It can be discharged by producing Form `F' and on the particulars stated in the said form being found true on being enquired into by the assessing officer. From this it does not follow that once order is made accepting Form `F' as true, it is not subject to the power of reopening or revision contained in Section 16 and 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act read with Section 92 of the Central Sales Tax Act. After all, Section 6-A is also one of the provisions in this Act. There is no reason to elevate it to a higher status than the rest of the provisions. If it were the intention of the Parliament to invest the "deemed" fact with the status of a conclusive presumption, the Parliament would have said so . The Court cannot supply that requirement. Ordinarily speaking, an order accepting - or rejecting - Form `F' a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19(1)(e) of the Constitution. All these contentions were rejected. We are unable to see how the ratio of or discussion in this decision in this decision is of any help to the appellant herein. Rule 3 of the Citizenship Act expressly enacts a conclusive presumption and that called for a discussion as to the nature of presumptions, the types of presumptions and their evidentiary value." The Supreme Court has noticed that whereas prior to amendment in sub-section (1) of section 6A, the dealer had option of filing a declaration in form F; after such amendment, he does not have such operation, in so far as in terms of amended provisions, if the dealer fails and/or neglects to file such declaration, the transaction would be deemed to be an inter-state sale. It is to be noted that for the aforesaid period also, the Parliament advisedly used the expression "deemed" is interpreted differently, would ensue incongruity. It has been laid down that the sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 6A must be given its proper meaning and statute must be read in its entirety. After a great deal of discussion, it has recorded its conclusion in paragraphs 114-115 which are reproduced below:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... " x x 114. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the observations made by this Court in Ashok leyland (supra) to the effect that an order passed under Sub-Section (2) of Section 6A can be subject matter of reopening of a proceeding under Section 16 of the State Act was not correct. 115. However, we may hasten to add that the same would not mean that even wherein such an order has been obtained by commission of fraud, collusion, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts or giving or furnishing false particulars, the order being vitiated in law would not come within the purview of the aforementioned principle. In view of the above discussion, the position appears to be as follows:- Prior to amendments in sub-section (1) of section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, the dealer could prove the movement of the goods from one State to another otherwise as sale either by filing the form F or by any other mode. After the amendment, the dealer has no option except to file form F to establish his case of stock transfer under section 6A of the Act. The earlier law laid down in the case of Ashoka Leyland Limited that filing of form F does not raise irrebutable presumption....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances the registration certificate can be cancelled by the assessing authority. (a) Where the dealer has ceased to carry on the business. (b) Where the dealer has ceased to exist. (c) Where the business is transferred. (d) Where the business is closed or discontinued. (e) Where the dealer has failed without sufficient cause to comply with an order under section 3-A or with the provision of sub-section 3-G or sub-section 3-C. (f) Where the dealer has failed to pay any tax or penalty payable under the Act. (g) Where in the case of a dealer registered under sub-section 2 has ceased to be liable to pay tax under the Sales Tax Act of the appropriate State. (h) For any other sufficient reason. (i) At the request of the dealer (Section 7(5)). (j) Where the dealer to whom registration certificate is issued is found to be fictitious person. None of the situations referred to above exist in the present case. Non mention of name and addresses of the branches situate outside the State of U.P. will not be covered within the phrase "for any other sufficient reason". That is the reason that the Assessing Authority has not proceeded to invoke its power to cancel t....