AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (2) TMI 507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r referred to as "the Central Act"), in respect of all the tea estates owned by it. The petitioner-appellant is also registered as a dealer under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Assam Act"). That the petitionerappellant in course of carrying business despatched tea from its different tea estates in Assam to Calcutta and Guwahati for sale. Tea was also despatched from the tea estates of the petitioner-appellant to other States for selling the same through different consignment agents appointed for the purpose. The petitioner-appellant has been regularly submitting its return of turnover showing therein the particulars of sale in the prescribed form as required under the Central Act and the Assam Act and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 44(3) of the Assam Act. The petitioner-appellant-company was thereafter served with notice dated May 20, 1981 purported to be a notice under section 19A of the Assam Act read with section 9(2) of the Central Act. By the aforesaid notice the manager of the tea estate was informed that the turnover for the period ending September 30, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980 had escaped assessment. A copy of the aforesaid notice is dated May 20, 1981 at annexure II to the writ application. That the Superintendent of Taxes, Tinsukia, vide order dated July 22, 1981 reassessed the turnover of the petitionerappellant treating the despatches made by the petitioner-appellant outside the State of Assam to the agents by way of sale as inter-State ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner (appellant) moved an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India which was numbered as Civil Rule No. 65 of 1989 for the following prayer: "(i) to quash the impugned order dated June 24, 1988 (annexure IX), (ii) to quash the order dated December 30, 1986, passed by the respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) (annexure VIII), (iii) to quash the impugned order of reassessment dated July 22, 1981 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Tinsukia (annexure III) and to quash the impugned notice dated November 3, 1988 issued by the respondent No. 3, the Superintendent of Taxes, directing the petitioner-appellant to pay the impugned demand on account of tax and interest (annexure I). In Civil Rule No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein. The tax authority has to accept the same and cannot ask for any further or other evidence and should treat the movement of the goods as stock transfer from one State to another. The authorities cannot thereafter go behind the said "F" form and make a finding contrary to the particulars contained in the declaration furnished by the dealer under sub-section (1) of section 6A. We have carefully considered the submissions made by Dr. A.K. Saraf on behalf of the writ petitioner (appellant) and do not find any substance in the same. The single Judge has carefully gone into the factual position of the transaction including the agreement between the parties and the various other documents furnished to the court at the time of hearing of this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted agency agreement and on finding of fact arrived at the conclusion that the particulars furnished in the declaration form were not true and the transaction was not that of stock transfer but was interState sale. So the tax authorities considered the acceptance of "F" form as irrelevant and collection of "C" form was imperative. Accordingly, the authorities assessed the sale transaction of the escaped turnover. The case reported in [1990] 76 STC 211 (C.P.K. Trading Company v. Additional Sales Tax Officer) was relied on by Dr. A.K. Saraf in support of his contention that once the "F" form is furnished with all particulars, the same is conclusive and the tax authority is bound to assess the transaction as stock transfer. In our view of th....