TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould state that they are engaged in manufacture of dash board instruments in a semi-finished condition at their factory in Coimbatore after which they are moved to the branch at Haryana. The semi-finished goods are received by the Haryana branch and after further process of manufacture, the semi-finished goods are converted into finished dash board instruments and sold to the customers within the State of Haryana. The applicable rates of taxes are collected and remitted before the 4th respondent, in State of Haryana. It is stated that the factory at Haryana employs 150 workers. The semi-finished goods requires further process of manufacture before it is sold. The petitioner filed their returns for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 under the CST Act and claimed exemption in respect of the stock transfer made to the branch/factory at Haryana. They filed Form F declaration to prove the dispatch of goods, the details of tax payment in the State of Haryana and the copy of the assessment order passed by the sales tax authorities in the State of Haryana. 3. The third respondent passed an order under Section 6(A) of the CST Act, accepting Form F declaration vide orders dated 30.09.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of assessment for another assessment year. Form F declarations produced by them were also relied upon. Apart from the above, the petitioner explained about the manufacturing activity done by them in Coimbatore to state that what was manufactured at Coimbatore is only a semi finished goods which are stock transferred to their branch at Haryana. They contended that the goods are general goods and not tailor-made. Further, it was pointed out that there may be some marking related to the ultimate customers name in the general goods, still the transaction will be a stock transfer. The petitioner also objected to the levy of penalty. After the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 134 STC 473, the petitioner by letter dated 29.01.2004 brought to the notice of the respondent about the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the effect of it and contended that once Form F declaration was accepted and an order passed, then it is conclusive and cannot be reopened on the basis that there has been a mere error of judgment and the reopening can be only on a small set of grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 VST 451 (CSTAA-New Delhi). 7. Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the case as projected by the petitioner is incorrect since based on specific customer purchase order, the goods were moved from Coimbatore to Gurgaon and where it was further sent to ultimate buyer within the Haryana State and the CST Act empowers the first State Authority where movement of goods across the State borders has commenced to tax the transaction and as such, it is a clear case of misrepresentation of facts and therefore, re-assessment was done and there is no error in the order. Further, the learned Government Advocate referred to the deposition of the Manager (Stores), Head Office, Coimbatore, who had stated that no manufacturing activity was done at Gurgaon and assuming it is an inadvertent admission, still the petitioner themselves established that there was manufacture in Haryana and payment of additional excise duty was actually made in Haryana which the petitioner had failed to prove. Further the existence of incriminating evidence in the slips has not been denied by the petitioner. The petitioner has admitted that they have paid local tax in H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner to their factory at Haryana is found in order and allowed the exemption of turnover. The proposal made by the officer earlier in his notice dated 13.05.1999 is to levy tax on the turnover which was claimed by the petitioner as a stock transfer on semi finished goods. I find that there is no specific mention by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 30.09.1999 that the goods which are stock transferred were semi-finished goods. The allegation against the petitioner is that purchase orders are placed by the purchasers in Haryana, the entire manufacturing activities are carried out in Coimbatore transferred to Haryana where there is no manufacturing done and the goods are sold in Haryana and it is not a case of stock transfer but a case of interstate sale and the State of Tamil Nadu is eligible to tax the transaction. This allegation has cropped up on account of an inspection which was conducted in the business premises of the petitioner on 23.11.1999 in which 169 slips relating to their business transactions were recovered. This inspection ultimately led to the issuance of a revision notice dated 20.03.2001. 11. On perusal of the revision notice, it is seen that the aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, the curtain is drawn keeping in view of the expression thereupon . The said word is of great significance and must be given its full effect. The particulars required to be furnished in Form F clearly manisfests that the proof required is as to whether the goods are factually transferred to the assessee himself or his branch office or his agent and not to any third party. Any other enquiry is beyond the realm of the Assessing Authority. Further, it was pointed out that the purpose of verification of the declaration made in Form F is whether branch office acted merely as a conduit or the transaction took place independent to the agreement to sell entered into by and between the buyer and the registered office or the office of the company situated outside the State. 13. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the legal position is that when all requisite particulars are stated in the Form F and once a determination is made that such statements are correct, the curtain is drawn. An exception which has been carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is by observing that such order is conclusive for all purpose and it can be reopened on a small set of grounds....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could not be reopened. Unless the details were found to be writ with fraud, collusion or misrepresentation or suppression of material facts, on a mere change of opinion, the findings could not be disturbed under Section 16 of the Act. When the original assessment rested on the findings of enquiry with reference to the details in Form F and the finding on Form F thus remained undisturbed even in the reassessment proceedings, the reassessment order revoking the exemption granted under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act could not sustained. 15. The above decision makes it clear that mere mentioning of the words that the particulars were incorrect or untrue is not sufficient and what is required to be done is to conduct an enquiry and unless details are found to be writ with fraud, misrepresentation or collusion or suppression of material facts, on a mere change of opinion, the findings could not be disturbed under Section 16 of the Act. 16. Before the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited (Supra) on facts, the Appellate Authority was against the assessee and held that the Tribunal is right in holding that the stock transfers effec....