TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 40,09,508 by way of inter-state sales and six H-Forms for Rs. 41,05,603 for the sales made by way of exports for the AY in question. It appears that the dealer was unable to furnish C-Forms for sales in the value of Rs. 1,20,900 which he claimed were inter-state sales. A default assessment order was passed on 7th February 2011 by the Value Added Tax Officer ('VATO') under Section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) directing the Appellant to pay tax in the sum of Rs. 12,695 after accepting the above C and H Forms in respect of inter-state sales and export sales respectively. The tax amount computed was to the extent of sales made by the dealer for which he was unable to furnish C-Forms. It is not in dispute that the Appellant has remitted the above amount of tax as demanded. 3. Thereafter on 1st December 2011/13th February 2012 the VATO issued a notice to the Appellant stating that he had filed an incomplete return or incorrect return or a return which did not comply with the requirements of the DVAT Act. Similar notices were issued in respect of each of the four quarters of the AY in question. The notices inter alia stated that when enquiries were made with cer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y its order dated 13th July 2015: "(i) Whether a transaction can be taxed twice, once under the Delhi VAT Act as intra-State sale in the State of Delhi and again as interstate sale under the CST Act? (ii) Whether re-assessment can be made without issuing notice of assessment under Section 32 of the Delhi VAT Act?" 8. During the hearing of the case on 27th November 2015 it was contended by Mr. Vinod Srivastava, learned counsel for the Appellants, that the impugned order of the Tribunal had erroneously proceeded on the basis that audit action under Section 58 (4) of the DVAT Act was in fact taken in accordance with law. The thrust of the submission was that evidence had been gathered behind the Appellant without any opportunity to the Appellant to counter such evidence. Further, that evidence formed the basis for reopening an assessment which already attained finality under Section 9 (2) of the CST Act. 9. In light of the above submissions, one of the questions that arose was whether any notice at all had been issued to the Assessee in the course of the audit proceedings prior to issuance of the notice for reassessment and penalty under Sections 32 and 33 of the DVAT Act. Mr. G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vember 2011 of the sole Proprietor of the Assessee, Mr. Harbinder Pal Singh. This runs into four pages and each of the pages bears his signature with the rubber stamp of the proprietary concern. Inter alia, in para 5 he refers to the fact that the audit of the business affairs of the concern was conducted by the VAT Audit Branch "vide notice dated 8th September 2011, date of first appearance as 19th September 2011". The compilation also contains further show cause notice issued on 16th November 2011 to the other two transporters i.e. Inland Movers (P) Ltd., Kolkata and Assam Bombay Cargo Carriers, New Delhi. It also has the audit report signed both by the VATO as well as the Assistant VATO analysing the statements made by the Assessee as well as the responses received from the transporters. 12. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that when they inspected the file of the Department, they did not find in it many of the documents which have been produced in the compilation. That apart, the statement dated 8th November 2011 given by the sole proprietor of the Appellant was doubted and it was suggested that it was possibly obtained under coercion. Significantly, Mr. Srivastava,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant was not entitled to avail of the benefit of the C-Forms and H-Forms produced by him in support of the claim of interstate and export sales, that would go to the very root of the matter and render the initial assessment made under Section 9(2) of the CST Act unsustainable in law. 17. The VATO will therefore be required to enquire, inter alia, into the aspect whether the above hand-written statement dated 8th November 2011 of the proprietor of the Appellant was given voluntarily. He will also examine if the entire exercise of audit took place in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 58 of the DVAT Act and the relevant Rules. 18. A further point that arises is whether the assessment under Section 9(2) of the CST Act pertained, as is contended by the Appellant, to all the quarters of AY 2008-09 or only the first quarter as is contended by learned counsel for the Respondent. 19. Even the issue raised by Mr. Srivastava on whether the assessment already made under Section 9 (2) of the CST Act can be overturned as a result of an audit exercise undertaken under Section 58 of the DVAT Act, without first setting aside the said assessments, is a point that has to be cons....