TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation and the Form submitted for adjustments/deduction. The dealer's appeal was rejected; it approached the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal'). Its appeal was initially entertained when a direction to pre-deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- and waiving the rest was made. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 25.06.2014, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the demand for Rs. 1,41,64,613/- which included an interest component of Rs. 63,57,976/-. 3. The Tribunal's reasoning may be found in the following extracted portion:- "7. Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties, record on the case file including the grounds of appeal, impugned order as also the relevant provisions of law have been perused carefully along with the authorities relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. The claim of the appellant for deduction u/s 4(2)(a)(v) of the DST Act was disallowed basically on the ground that the form was issued for the Assessment Year 1994-95, but was used in the year 1996-97 by making cuttings in respect of the year as well as goods. Besides this, it was also alleged that the entries on the reverse side of the form have been over written and the date of issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wed unless a true declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold and containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtainable from the prescribed authority in the manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed is furnished in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, by the dealer who sells the goods: Provided also that where any goods are purchased by a registered dealer for any purposes mentioned in sub-clause (v), but are not so utilized by him, the price of the goods so purchased shall be allowed to be deducted from the turnover of the selling dealer but shall be included in the taxable turnover of the purchasing dealer; 8. A plain reading of the above Section and provisions thereto would reveal that most of the restrictions are intended for the purchasing dealer and not for the selling dealer. The only restriction intended for the selling dealer is provided in the second proviso, which states that "no deduction in respect of any sale referred to in sub-clause (v) shall be allowed unless a true declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold and containing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom virtually time immemorial in various judgments i.e. (i) the forms are obtained by the registered dealers from the prescribed authority; (ii) such forms are duly filled and signed by the purchasing registered dealer; and (iii) goods sold to the purchasing dealers are covered by the registration certificates issued. 8. It is contended that the rejection of the Forms in this case was on two grounds, firstly, that there were interpolations in form of cuttings that substitute the goods as well as the date of the transactions and the value of the goods. Learned counsel submits that there is no controversy that the goods for which credit or benefits were claimed were covered with the registration issued to the selling dealer. In the circumstances, the cuttings or interpolations were insignificant; had the Sales Tax Authorities any doubt about the genuineness of the transaction, they should have directed their guns as it were against the selling dealer and not the purchasing dealer, who had merely obtained the forms and deposited the tax duly reflecting the enormity of the transaction i.e. Rs. 9.24 crores to claim the benefit of the Form. Having regard to the judgment of this Court in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sin. Equally, it is not their case that the selling dealer was registered for sale and purchase of Ball Bearings. In the present case, the Form records a transaction of sale dated 23.11.1996 for Rs. 9,25,52,964/- reported by the purchasing dealer. Undoubtedly, on the face of the Form, there are overwritings/corrections. At the same time, given the fact that the goods sold, which are reflected, are, in fact, those goods which the selling dealer was authorized to transact, the question of an interpolation at the behest or with the involvement of the purchasing dealer does not arise. Besides, the Form in this case was issued on 05.08.1994. The circular, as has been discussed previously, was issued on 23.06.1995. In the circumstances, ex facie, the circular could not have been operative. 12. As far as the question of the validity of the Form is concerned, the Revenue, in this case, relied upon second proviso to Rule 7 (1) of the Rules. The relevant part of Rule 7(1) reads as follows:- "7 - Conditions subject to which a dealer may claim deduction from his turnover on account of sales to registered dealers. - (1) A dealer who wishes to deduct from his turnover the amount in respect of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date............. Signature.................... Name of the person signing the declaration and his status in relation to the purchasing dealer. Name and address of the purchasing dealer. 14. From a combined reading of the Form and the Rules, it is quite evident that the declaration per se does not contain any provision limiting the date or dates or time period for which it is valid. All that proviso to Rule 7(1) of the Rules requires is that if transactions are concerned with the delivery of goods spreading over different years, it is necessary to furnish a separate declaration in respect of goods delivered in each year. We fail to understand how this provision would come to the aid of the Revenue in the circumstances of the case. The Form concededly was issued in August, 1994; there was absolutely no authority or warrant for the Revenue to stamp on it "1994-95", to denote its validity- given that the circular was issued much later on 23.06.1995. The so-called validity of the Form, therefore, could not have bound either the selling or the purchasing dealer in the circumstances of this case. 15. It is further reaf....