TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t case, the impugned order passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh, is erroneous, unjust, incorrect and unsustainable in law and fact? (ii) Whether, in facts and circumstances of present case, the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh, has correctly passed the order based on perverse and erroneous legal reasoning? (iii) Whether, in facts and circumstances of present case, the Haryana Tax, Tribunal, Chandigarh, has correctly passed the present order by ignoring the principles of natural justice by relying on completely different set of facts which are not applicable to the instant matter? (iv) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh, has correctly passed the present order by relying completely on the findings of the previous assessment year (AY 2000-01) and without relying on findings with regard to the present assessment year (AY 2001-02)? (v) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of present case, the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh, has correctly passed the present order by holding that the impugned transaction is an inter-State sales when the conditions under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act have not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnover, such deduction was allowed in original assessment order of June 25, 2004 of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Faridabad (East)-cum-Assessing Authority. Sometime later, the concerned Assessing Officer received a communication of July 7, 2005, from his counterpart of the neighbouring jurisdiction. It contained vital information qua the present appellant-assessee. On verification of the details given in the said letter, it was found that the dealer to whom sale of DEPB licences had allegedly been made in fact was a smokescreen, whereas in fact sales of the licences had been made to entities outside Haryana and thus these sales were not innocuous registered dealer (RD) sales but in fact were inter-State sales. Sequelly, on availability of complete data and information which had been duly verified, proceedings for reassessment had been conducted joining the assessee therein. Ultimately reassessment orders for 2000-01 as also for 2001-02 were made by the Assessing Officer on March 30, 2006, wherein penalty proceedings for these years had also been started resulting in imposition of penalty against them. The appellant-assessee had challenged these reassessment orders....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to raise an adverse inference against the appellant. It was urged that once requisite declaration in ST-15 forms had been given by the purchasing dealer and these forms had been produced during assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer, benefit could not be denied to the appellant merely because some unverifiable mischievous information had become available to the Assessing Officer. It is vehemently contended that onus to prove that there was an inter-State sale is on the Department and not on the assessee. It is canvassed further that the said onus had not been discharged by the Department. Continuing his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant was not associated with the reassessment proceedings and when there was nothing to connect the appellant with entities outside the State, connection with the appellant could not be presumed. It is urged that had the Assessing Officer made proper verification, he was not to miss intimation action against the local dealers to whom the sales had been made by the appellant. Though, the appellant has taken various grounds in these appeals but no point other than those already mentioned, has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the declaration in respect of the said sale succeeding." The plea of the appellant that there is no supporting evidence, to disbelieve and reject the registered dealer local sales allegedly made by the appellant and to turn those sales to inter-State sales, is again a misnomer. Not only the Assessing Officer, during reassessment proceedings, but even the first and the second appellate authorities have meticulously evaluated the entire facts and have come to a firm conclusion that sales of the DEPB licences made by the appellant during both assessment years, i.e., 2000-01 and 2001-02 are in fact inter-State sales, notwithstanding colour of RD sales having been given to such sales by the appellant. Even when reappraisal of the facts available on the paper book is made, result is no different. To understand the controversy, what happened in the neighbouring areas of the appellant contemporaneously, is worthy of evaluation. If we go by the apparent text of the transactions made by the appellant, the position in the assessment year 2000-01 is as under: DEPB details First sale (claimed) Second sale (claimed) No. Amount in Rs. Date Dealer's name Date ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tered post, e-mail/fax, couriered/by hand made by the appellant, being seller, and the alleged purchase, i.e., M/s. Krishna Enterprises regarding sale-purchase of the goods in question, but the appellant failed to produce the same for the reasons well-known to him." Despite this order of the first appellate authority, the appellant could not prove its bona fides either before it or by production of relevant record before the Tribunal during proceedings of second appeal. No such attempt was made by the appellant. The contention of the appellant, asserting genuineness of the sales made by it, was that its vendees were not having any restrictive covenant with it and thus could further freely sell the said licences to anyone. It is asserted that these were sold to M/s. Samsung Electronics India Ltd., Noida as also to M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, Delhi, during the assessment year 2000-01. In short, it is claimed that sale to outside Haryana dealers was made by its vendee M/s. Krishna Enterprises and not by the appellant directly. It is further claimed that in the assessment year 2001-02, sale was made by the appellant to M/s. Sai Industries, Faridabad, which in turn had made further sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irectly to M/s. Samsung Electronics India Ltd., Noida and M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, Delhi in assessment year 200001 and to M/s. Honda Siel Cars India Limited, Noida in the assessment year 2001-02 and the purchasers shown in the original assessment order, viz., M/s. Krishna Enterprises for the assessment year 2000-01 and M/s. Sai Industries for the assessment year 2001-02 in fact were only names of traders which names were used as camouflage and subterfuge. The plea of the appellant that M/s. Samsung Electronics India Ltd., Noida and M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, Delhi, were subsequent vendees of M/s. Krishna Enterprises, whereas M/s. Honda Siel Cars India Limited, Noida was also subsequent vendee of M/s. Sai Industries, Faridabad, is a proposition of no substance and merits rejection when the entire record has been evaluated. In addition to the discussion already made, it would be appropriate to detail even further circumstances which conclusively show that the sales shown by the appellant as registered dealer sales made to local dealers in fact were sales made to dealers outside the State of Haryana and thus were not RD sales but were inter-State sales exigible to added taxation in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by it to be out of tax-net and had projected these documents to vouch for registered dealer sales which in fact had never been transacted and were non-existent. When tested on the touchstone of this provision, it becomes evident that M/s. Sai Enterprises for the assessment year 2001-02 was only introduced as a smokescreen whereas in fact the sale was inter-State transaction and it was a case of fraud committed on the Revenue. (viii) When the sale had been made to M/s. Honda Siel located in the Noida (U.P.) and it had paid the price for the goods purchased there, M/s. Sai Enterprises was having no concern. During the assessment proceedings, inquiries had also been made from M/s. Honda Siel who had confirmed that they had made payment directly to the appellant-seller. From the facts and circumstances when the artificial veil is lifted, it becomes evident that the contract of sale is between the appellant and M/s. Honda Siel Limited, Noida, for the year 2001-02. Delivery of the DEBP licences had met with payment directly from their own account clearly showing that delivery of the goods had not been made in the State of Haryana to the dealer as had been projected by the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....twithstanding the fact that no transaction of transfer (on consideration of sale) could be proved to have come to the appellant from these registered dealers of Faridabad much less through banking channels. The appellant cannot hide its misdeeds because no action has been taken by the authorities against M/s. Krishna Enterprises and M/s. Sai Industries local dealers, as yet. No benefit can be derived by the appellant from this aspect when material and evidence against the appellant, is so overwhelming. From the totality of facts, circumstances and discussion made earlier, it turns out to be entirely an exercise based on evaluation, and appraisal of facts and circumstances wherein no point of law much less substantial arises for adjudication by this court. Sequelly, upholding the impugned order of the Tribunal, all the four appeals are dismissed in limine. Before parting with this judgment, we would like to make some observations, as under. It may be pointedly noticed that during the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had found large scale fraud by the appellant. Nonetheless, he confined himself to institution of penalty proceedings in terms of section 8 of ....