TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o as "the Act") read with Entry 9A of the Second Schedule. The revision petitioner, who is styled as the assessee in the order under review, is the review petitioner herein. The contention raised in the revision was that the assessee was the purchaser from a registered dealer and was only a second seller within the State. The mere fact that the first seller, being the registered dealer from whom the assessee purchased the goods, did not pay the tax, cannot result in an assessment being made against the assessee, was the contention. 2. The assessee filed its returns under Section 17(4) of the Act and on the allegation of suppression, detected on inspection, penalty proceedings were initiated, which concluded in the assessee compounding the offence. Subsequently the assessment made under Section 17(4) was re-opened under Section 19(1) of the Act and the tax sought to be evaded was assessed in the name of the assessee finding the assessee to be the first seller in the State. In fact the alleged seller, from whom the assessee is alleged to have made the purchases, filed 'Nil' returns. The Tribunal rejected the claim of second sale made by the assessee and on facts found that the all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 of 2013) dated 27.07.2013. The said Annexure-J order dated 30.03.2013 is one in which penalty has been imposed on M/s.Star Trading, the alleged first seller as contended by the assessee. By the said order, the Intelligence Officer found that with respect to the entire suppression of sales turnover detected on inspection of M/s.Star Trading, Cochin and its branch at Kottayam, it is found that the first seller of wheat during the assessment years 1998-1999 to 2000-2001 is M/s.Star Trading itself. A number of transactions are seen pertaining to M/s.Star Trading and the total turnover suppressed for the year 1998-99 as disclosed in Annexure-J, is Rs.25,66,69,108/-, which comprises the turnover suppression alleged against the review petitioner/assessee, is the contention raised by the review petitioner. The penalty order having found the turnover assessed as first sale of the review petitioner; to be actually the first sale of M/s.Star Trading, the final order in the Sales Tax Revision is sought to be reviewed. 5. Before we look at the review, we have to necessarily notice the manner in which the penalty proceedings were proceeded with after remand. 6. Evidently before the penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had issued directions to enquire about the disputed sales turn over to the extend of Rs.2.52 Crores wheat and resin purchased by M/s.South Asean Trade Links, Ernakulam from M/s.Star Trading, HIG-37, Panampily Nagar, Kochi-36 and M/s.A-One Traders, Vattanappally in the Assessment year 1998-1999 and also to enquire subsequent sales transactions of M/s.South Asean Trade Links in the Assessment year 1998-1999". 8. We are distressed to note that effectively the Intelligence Officer has sat in appeal over the final order of this Court, which confirmed the fact finding order of the Tribunal. With respect to the transaction with the assessee, when the Tribunal has confirmed the assessment of Rs.2,29,23,000/- alleged to have been purchased from M/s.Star Trading on the assessee itself; it goes without saying that it did not lie in the mouth of the Intelligence Officer to find that the said transaction is actually one which M/s.Star Trading had made the first sale of. We find that a surreptitious attempt has been made by the Intelligence Officer to get over the order of this Court in the Sales Tax Revision by stating that "the High Court has admitted the Review Petition filed against the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee, but merely allows them to participate in the proceedings initiated against another. It is also unfortunate that the Intelligence Officer concludes that the High Court was misguided by the Investigation Department when the report of the Department was only fleetingly referred to, as noticed earlier. 11. With reference to the directions said to have been made by this Court referred to above (para 2 in page 41), the Intelligence Officer contends that it is with reference to the order under review. We do not see any such direction in the order under review. We are of the opinion that the affidavit filed by the Intelligence Officer does not at all explain as to how the Intelligence Officer derived powers to sit in judgment of the final order in revision; filed by the alleged second seller, M/s.South Asean Trade Links, the assessee herein. However, we are not sitting in appeal or revision over the order of the Intelligence Officer and we are precluded from considering the same on merits. However, we have to notice that the Intelligence Officer has exceeded his authority and has made deliberate incorrect statements in the order dated 30.03.2013. 12. We noticed in the order under....