TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 682
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....return. Out of the gross turnover, the amount of Rs. 25,21,85,896.94 representing inter-State stock transfer was deducted by the dealer claiming the transaction to be against "F forms". While framing the assessment, the assessing authority accepted 66 statutory "F forms" submitted by the dealer to claim deduction of Rs. 25,19,16,609.37 as transfers otherwise than by way of sales, vide order dated August 14, 2001. It is further pleaded that after the assessment was framed, it came to the notice of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Mobile Wing, Patiala, from the sales tax authorities at Delhi, where stock transfers have been made, that the registration certificates of the dealers to whom the goods had been transferred stood cancelled and the "F forms" so submitted by the dealers were not even issued to them. Considering this to be an error in the order of assessment, the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner exercising powers conferred on him under section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, "the State Act") issued suo motu notice dated February 22, 2002 to the dealer for examining the legality and propriety of the order of assessment dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the relevant time and the dealer had liberty to prove the transactions of transfer other than by way of sales to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority by leading any other evidence. It is further pleaded that the orders passed by the authorities below are totally in violation of principles of natural justice as neither the report of Delhi sales tax authorities was ever confronted to the dealer nor any Gazette notification showing cancellation of registration certificates or the loss of "F forms" was confronted. The consignor cannot be held responsible for any misdeeds at the end of consignee which are beyond his control. It is further pleaded that the petitioner has further failed to point out that in case the "F forms" in question had not been issued to the Delhi dealers by the authorities there to whom the same had been issued as per records, the exercise of powers under section 21 of the State Act was also contested. Still further it is submitted that the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, to whom the matter was remanded by the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner exercising his revisional jurisdiction, could not have exercised the revisional jurisdictio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h law and within four corners of powers conferred on it. He further submitted that even on merits exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities in passing various orders against the dealer has resulted in misuse of process of law and sheer harassment to the dealer. What necessitated the filing of the rectification application was non-consideration by the VAT Tribunal of the contentions raised by the counsel for the dealer so as to enable the dealer to effectively pursue its further remedies. He also relied upon the various judgments such as Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1996] 100 STC 417 (P&H), Nav Bharat Enterprises Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. 18, New Delhi [1987] 66 STC 252 (Delhi), State of Orissa v. Orissa Small Industries Corporation [1987] 67 STC 262 (Orissa), Kanha Vanaspati Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2002] 19 PHT 473 (All), Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2004] 134 STC 473 (SC); [2004] 3 SCC 1, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited v. State of Haryana [2002] 125 STC 18 (P&H), Hari Chand Rattan Chand & Co. v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Additional) Punjab [1969] 24 STC 258 (P&H); AIR 1970 P&H 206, Commissioner of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to this court. Thereafter, the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissionercum-Revisional Authority, Ludhiana-III after referring to the proceedings initiated by the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner under section 21 of the State Act and remand of case by him, passed an order under the Central Act rejecting the claim of consignment transfers on account of "F forms" having not been issued to the consignees by the authorities at Delhi and accordingly raised a demand. It is important to notice here that initially proceedings initiated by the revisional authority were under the State Act and not under the Central Act. The question of consignment transfers was not even dealt with in the order of assessment under the Central Act where total turnover assessed was Rs. 32,243.75. The issues raised by the dealer in appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Revisional Authority with regard to order being bad on various counts, namely, exercise of revisional jurisdiction second time and the order having been passed under the Central Act whereas no proceedings were initiated for the same in earlier proceedings and the remand order having b....