TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 256
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period 2005-06. It came to the notice of the Assessing Officer that for the period 2005-06, the respondentassessee appears to have purchased goods of a value of Rs. 26,84,001/- & taking into consideration that the respondentassessee did not file any return nor any other documents in support of the said purchases. Accordingly, a show cause notice was given. An explanation was filed on behalf of the respondent, however, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion on perusal of the declaration Form ST-17 that the assessee purchased "Marble Kareji" of Rs. 26,18,400/- from one M/s. Anupam Marble Pvt. Ltd., Kishangarh and the assessee nowhere disclosed the said purchases. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the said declaration Fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on purchases to pay lower taxes but it was for the assessee to explain under what circumstances, the declaration Form ST-17 was issued. Counsel contended that u/Sec.23(10) of the RST Act, it was mandatory for the assessee to keep the declaration From ST-17 in safe custody and the Assessing Officer rightly found that there was connivance in between the assessee and M/s. Anupam Marble Pvt. Ltd. and a story was built up about stealing of the declaration Form ST-17. It may be that the assessee informed the Assessing Officer but that is no reason to hold otherwise because the provision requires that information has to be filed by an assessee and merely giving information is of no avail. Counsel contended that declaration Form ST-17 is valuable b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per bill ranging from 1,45,000/- onwards to 2,00,000/- and "Marble Kareji" is a waste and is made available @ Rs. 4,000-5,000/- per truck and to say that a single bill of a value of more than Rs. 1,45,000/- to 2,00,000/- is unheard of. Thus, contended that the burden of proof was on the revenue which has miserably failed to establish further material or evidence. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. In my view, the finding reached by the two Appellate authorities is well reasoned and no interference is caused. It may be that the assessee was negligent or may not be careful and how the declaration Form ST-17 reached and was misused by M/s. Anupam Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hown bogus sales in her name. From the facts narrated above the following facts are emerged- 1. In declaration form issued to assessee the Commercial Tax Department has shown Nil purchases by M/s. India Marbles in financial year 2005-06. 2. In assessment order of Commercial Tax Department the assessee has declared Nil purchases and sales in financial year 2005-06. 3. In affidavit the assessee has submitted that she has not made any sales and purchases during the financial year 2005-06 i.e. assessment year 2006-07. 4. The assessee has filed complaint before SHO, Mandanganj against M/s. Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd. From the facts narrated above, at this stage it is clear that assessee has not made any purchases from M/s. Anupam Mar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Government revenue, if any directly of indirectly from any theft, loss of destruction thereof, if any such from is stolen, lost or destroyed, the dealer shall immediately report the fact to his assessing authority and shall make appropriate entries in the remarks column of Part A of the register in form ST 16A and shall take such further steps to issue public notice of theft, loss of destruction. As the assessing authority may direct." 13. On perusal of the section 23(10) reproduced herein above, it transpires that in case, the declaration Form ST-17 was lost/stolen, it is to bring to the notice of the Assessing Officer which admittedly has been brought to the notice by the Income Tax Officer and also simultaneously filed an FIR. 14.....