TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r things the petitioner was exempted from tax in respect of consignment sale/stock transfer against Form-F. One of the Form-F in connection with which tax exemption was granted was Form No.03Q-600527 which was said to have been issued to the petitioner by the consignee agent M/s Ram Badra Sales Agency, New Delhi. The Additional Commissioner Commercial Tax vide the impugned order dated 24.09.2015 has granted permission under Section 29(7) of the VAT Act to the Assessing Authority to reassess the petitioner for the above assessment year. Consequently a notice to participate in the reassessment proceedings has been issued by the assessing authority on 11.01.2016. The above order granting permission to reopen the assessment and the consequential notice thereof are under challenge in the present petition. The permission to reopen the assessment has been granted only for the reason that one of the Forms-F No.03Q-600527 issued by the consignee agent M/s Ram Badra Sales Agency, New Delhi was reported to be fake/furzi and was not issued by the department to the said consignee agent rather to some other dealer and as such the exemption of tax granted on its basis to the petitioner appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the VAT Act shall not be made after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Sub-Section (7) of the Section 29 of the VAT Act provides that where the Commissioner is satisfied that it is just and expedient on part of the Assessing Authority even beyond the period of three years aforesaid but before the expiry of eight years from the end of the relevant assessment year, he may authorise the Assessing Authority to reassess the assessee. A bare reading of the provisions of Sub-Section (1), (3) and (7) of Section 29 of the VAT Act reveals that if the Assessing Authority has reason to believe that any of the four conditions as laid down therein are fulfiled, he may reassess the dealer to tax according to law after issuing notice to him provided this is done within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In case the reassessment is to be done after the above three years but within eight years of the expiry of the relevant assessment year, the Commissioner has to record his satisfaction for such reassessment. The authorisation of the Commissioner is therefore, necessary for reassessment after the expiry of the initial period of three y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Supreme Court held that the expression "reason to believe" does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on part of the Assessing Authority but satisfaction reached by the Assessing Authority on the basis of the facts or materials available before it and the material on which the opinion is so formed must not be arbitrary, irrational, vague, distant or irrelevant. In the case at hand, the "reason to believe" that the income has escaped assessment has been based upon the letter dated 29.01.2015 of the Joint Commissioner Special Investigation Branch Commercial Tax which states that the petitioner was granted exemption in the assessment year 2008-09 on a sum of Rs. 1,98,44,215/- of the consignment sale on the basis of Form-F No.03Q-600527. The said Form appears to be fictitious and bogus as no Form of that series was ever issued to the consignee agent M/s Ram Badra Sales Agency, New Delhi rather it was issued to another firm M/s Aamangalam Food and Beverages Ltd. Thus, the use of the said Form for seeking exemption of tax is not proper and as such the turnover of the assessee/petitioner appears to have escaped assessment requiring reassessment for the relevant year. The recital ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion on his part. In M/s Star Paper Mills Ltd. Saharanpur Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax 2004 U.P.T.C. 317 while dealing with Form 3-B issued under U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, a Division Bench of this court observed that where it was not the case of the department that the Form was not printed by the department and was forged or that there was collusion between the parties issuing and using it, the benefit of the said Form as claimed by the assessee cannot be denied to him. All the aforesaid decisions are only to the effect that the assessee dealer may not be responsible for any neglect, misconduct or fraud in the use of the disputed Form-F and that if he had bonafidely used the same on being issued by the consignee agent and the department does not dispute the genuineness of the same except for the fact that it was issued to some other party and could not have been utilised by the consignee agent, it only establishes that the petitioner may not be denied the benefit/exemption which has been granted to it in the matter of assessment of tax on the basis of the said Form-F. The aforesaid decisions however, are in not way helpful to the petitioner to dislodge the permission which has ....