TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the petitioner under section 47(2) of the KVAT Act. The security deposits were subsequently converted to penalty under section 47(6) of the Act. Annexures A and B are the penalty orders. According to the petitioner, since he has no local sales of arecanut within the State he has no obligation to pay tax under the KVAT Act. 3. Since penalty was imposed on him, his monthly returns for October 2005 to March 2006 were rejected and the assessing officer resorted to the best judgment assessments under section 24 of the KVAT Act for the said months. The assessing officer added two times of purchase turnover of arecanuts as taxable under section 6(2) and two times of the value of inter State stock transfer as turnover under section 6(1) of the KVAT Act. Annexure C is the common assessment order. According to the petitioner, the return under the CST Act for the year 2005-06 was accepted by the assessing authority and annexure D is the said assessment order. Challenging the orders passed by the assessing officer under the KVAT Act, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the order was modified by reducing the addition to equal of the purchase turnover u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g authority completed the assessment on the basis of the monthly return period?" 7. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent-Revenue. It is, inter alia, contended that the offence is detected on the transaction under the CST Act and merely for the reason that the same was not raised before the lower authorities, there was nothing wrong in the Tribunal to have decided a question of law. That apart, it is contended that when an assessment is made under section 24 of the KVAT Act on the ground that there is omission or suppression, it has to be a transaction under the KVAT Act and in so far as the transaction in question was under the CST Act, no authority vests with the Sales Tax Department to impose penalty on the assessee. 8. The Tribunal, on perusal of the records, found that the assessee's contention that he has no local sales and that the suppression was detected on inter-State sales was not raised before the authorities below. Apparently, whether the assessee was doing an inter-State sales or not is a question of fact. The Tribunal further found that the assessee was in the habit of transpor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal, on a question of law, it could be raised before the High Court. It is held that when a question of law is raised before the Tribunal and not considered, it must deemed to have been dealt with by it and therefore one arising out of its order. Another judgment relied upon is Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer: [1985] 60 STC 301 (SC) wherein it is held that when goods are moved from one State to another, the sale transaction amounts to inter-State sales under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer: [1976] 38 STC 475 (SC) wherein it is held that if the movement of goods was an incident of or occasioned by the sales itself, it would be taxable under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India: [1981] 47 STC 1 (SC) also it is held that when the sales were clearly inter-State sales, the State of Uttar Pradesh has no jurisdiction to assess the petitioner to sales tax under the State Act. 12. The propositions are well accepted. The question would be whether the factual situation available in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year if a pattern of suppression is detected in terms of rule 39(5) of the KVAT Rules. In such circumstances, the assessing officer opined that when a pattern of suppression can be established on the basis of two instances spreading over different months of a financial year, the proposed addition is reasonable. It is also indicated that the detection was noticed while transporting goods through different check-posts at Vazhikadavu and at Tholpetty. It is also found that the modus operandi practised by the dealer was to transport twice the quantity conceded. 16. The Tribunal did not consider the legality of the estimation on the ground that such a contention was not raised before lower authorities. This finding apparently appears to be incorrect as the main contention urged by the assessee is that the transaction in question was inter-State stock transfer and the CST assessment order was completed on June 15, 2010. In fact, this aspect of the matter ought to have been considered by the Tribunal in accordance with the procedure prescribed. If the assessee has a case that he has no local sales at all and therefore the turnover estimated under section 6(1) of the KVAT Act is bad in l....