TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 1165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that, there is absolutely no justification for the finding arrived at by the Departmental authorities, while imposing the penalty on the petitioner, especially in view of the fact that, the petitioner/consignor/seller was not in a position to ascertain the deeds and misdeeds of the consignee/buyer situated outside the State. It is contended that, when the goods sold by the petitioner had admittedly crossed the border (inter-State sale) and when the petitioner, who originally remitted the tax at four per cent also cleared the differential tax as well (when the Departmental authorities arrived at a finding that the C forms submitted by the petitioner, procured from the consignee, were not genuine), there is absolutely no foundation for havin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mangalore, vide his letter dated August 22, 2002 informed the Department that the alleged consignee was not a registered dealer at all and that the Department had not issued any C forms to the said party. This clearly showed that the C forms produced by the petitioner were quite bogus and fabricated, with intent to avail of the concessional rate of tax. In the abovesaid circumstances, the Departmental authorities issued exhibit P1 notice imposing penalty upon the petitioner under section 45A of the Act, which was replied as per exhibit P2 statement of objections. After considering the points raised by the petitioner, the third respondent passed exhibit P3 order holding that there was a conscious attempt to evade....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it, is very much discernible from the materials on record. In the said circumstance, interference was declined as per exhibit P4; which in turn was subjected to challenge by filing second revision before the first respondent. The second revisional authority considered the entire facts and circumstances and found that absolutely no ground was made out to have a deviation to the course pursued by the authorities below. Accordingly, the impugned order was confirmed as per exhibit P5, imposing the maximum penalty, which in turn has been subjected to challenge in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the various decisions rendered by the apex court as well as different High Courts in State of Madras v. Radio a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, i.e., third respondent while passing exhibit P3 order, particularly at running pages 5 to 9, wherein the "statement of objection" submitted by the petitioner has been extracted. In sub-paragraph 4 of the above extract, the petitioner has virtually conceded that, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Check-post, Mangalore by his letter dated December 26, 2001 had informed the petitioner that the concerned consignee was not available at Mangalore and that the sales tax registration number in the invoices was fictitious. In the above circumstances, the petitioner was requested to furnish details of the sales and also other necessary particulars. Accordingly, the petitioner forwarded the documents as given at serial Nos. 1 to 5 me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....investigation as to its credibility, thus seeking to sustain the concession availed of, having remitted the reduced tax at the rate of four per cent. It was pursuant to this, that the genuineness of the C forms was got verified by the Department by sending them to their "counterpart" in Mangalore, whereupon it was categorically revealed that the Departmental authorities in Mangalore had not issued any such C forms. Accordingly, the third respondent arrived at a finding that the course pursued by the petitioner deserved maximum penalty and thus passed exhibit P3 order. It was after considering all the relevant aspects covered by exhibit P3, that the revisional authorities passed exhibit P4 and exhibit P5, upholding and confirming exhibit P3 ....