TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 578
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f demand draft. He has received "C" declaration forms as per section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act in order to avail the concessional rate of tax at four per cent, as petrol, diesel and other lubricating oils are taxable at 11 per cent at the point of first sale. Based on the purchase orders placed by the petitioner, the seller, viz., the Indian Oil Corporation, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, despatched the petroleum products to the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have obtained "C" declaration forms from the respondent and issued to the seller, viz., the Indian Oil Corporation, Chennai. If no "C" declaration forms were filed by the petitioner, the seller would charge higher rate of tax at 30 pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner was called upon to submit its objections. The petitioner has submitted that it is not known as to how the new purchase details were included in the revised show-cause notice and the respondent himself is not sure about the figures mentioned against the purchase extract, said to have been obtained from the Indian Oil Corporation. It is submitted that even though the petitioner had approached the sellers for giving statement of accounts, they have not received any particulars. The respondent has also not furnished any details, such as, movement, payment particulars and "C" declaration forms issued by them, against the goods said to have been received by them. In spite of furnishing all these particulars, the respondent has passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent ought to have extended the time to enable the petitioner to submit their objections. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since thirdparty records were relied on for revising the assessment, the assessee ought to have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses to rebut the transactions. He further submitted that where gross injustice is done, the aggrieved person need not go before the authority by way of an appeal or revision, and there is no bar to approach the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) R.G. Bandari and Company v. Joint....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for the respondent. The impugned revised assessment order reveals that the petitioner, dealer in petroleum products, was originally assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 6,84,75,296.29 and Rs. 6,63,73,369.29, respectively by the respondent in his proceedings in 201529/2002-03 dated May 4, 2004 under section 18(1) of the PGST Act, 1967 and exempted turnover of Rs. 21,01,927 for the assessment year 2002-03 on May 4, 2004. The verification of the purchase details from their vendors, viz., the Indian Oil Corporation, Chennai, revealed that the dealer had understated the purchase turnover for the assessment year 2002-03. On detecting the escaped turnover, the respondent has proposed to revise the assessment and accordingly, notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther time. In State of Tripura v. Manoranjan Chakraborty reported in [2001] 122 STC 594; [2001] 10 SCC 740, the Supreme Court held that where gross injustice is done, the writ jurisdiction can be invoked notwithstanding the alternative remedy provided under the statute. In the reported judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the provisions in sections 20(1) and 21(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act barring entertainment of appeal/ revision against an order without payment of the amount of tax assessed or penalty levied. The apex court observed that in a case of high-handed and palpable illegal order, the court can exercise the jurisdiction de hors the alternative remedy. On facts, the reported judgment is not applicable to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), a Division Bench of this court held that an assessee should be given an opportunity to crossexamine the third parties. The above reported judgments do not apply to the facts of the present case because in all these cases, on basis of materials and statements obtained from third parties, raid or vigilance inspection were conducted. In the instant case, on verification of purchase materials obtained from Messrs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, it was found that the petitioner had understated the purchase turnover for the assessment year 2002-03. The purchase statement, sales statement, bills and the "C" declaration form submitted by the petitioner have been duly verified, before passing the impugned order of assessment. The documents....