TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in [2004] 134 STC 473 (SC). 3. Though in the impugned assessment order there are two issues as against the issue pertaining to the levy of purchase tax on the purchase of fly ash by the petitioner from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the petitioner had filed a separate writ petition in W.P.No.10262 of 2005, and the Division Bench by order dated 03.11.2010 has allowed the writ petition following the order passed in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Associated Cement Companies Limited reported in [2010] 29 VST 153 (Mad). 4. So far as the second issue is concerned, it is submitted that the present writ petition pertains to stock transfer to the petitioner's depot at Pondicherry. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 28.02.2001. On perusal of the annual reports filed by the petitioner for the year 1998-1999, it was pointed out that the place of business of the petitioner was inspected by the Enforcement Wing officials on 09.12.1998, and it was found that the petitioner had effected branch transfer to Pondicherry up to 30.11.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent, the petitioner made a request that the documents, which were seized from them, marked as book D and E were not returned to them nor copies have been provided to them, in spite of oral and written request made on more than five occasions. Therefore, the petitioner stated that in the absence of relevant records, and fax messages, he is not in a position to give specific replies in respect of various challans/invoice numbers and the names noted in the fax copy and the Pondicherry invoice, which have been mentioned in the pre-assessment notice with regard to movement of goods. The petitioner's explanation was that in each and every case of stock transfer from manufacturing unit to Pondicherry Depot, the goods have been dispatched in bulk without any reference or linkage to any specific order or prior contract. All such dispatches are by way of stock transfers where the consignor and the consignee is the Company. The goods are dispatched by road transport for which proper proof of dispatch in the form of Lorry Receipt is available and is also supported with Form ST XX. These ST Forms are issued by the Commercial Tax Department and are subject to verification and scrutiny by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it was pointed out that the said provision cannot be invoked as there was no mala fide intention and best judgment assessment of the turnover is already reported in the CST returns and disclosed in the books of accounts also. On receipt of the objections, the second respondent issued a revised notice dated 18.08.2004. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the said revised notice, the second respondent has accepted the actual stock transfer value of goods to Pondicherry Depot from Podanur. For the revised notice, the petitioner submitted their objections dated 20.09.2004, much of which reiterating the earlier stand, apart from furnishing additional particulars on the figures mentioned in the revised notice. The second respondent has passed the assessment order rejecting the contention raised by the petitioner vide the impugned order confirming the proposal in the revised notice. The impugned assessment order runs to 35 pages. 12. It appears that the impugned order is a reasoned order. On a close scrutiny, it is seen that the second respondent has verbatim extracted the objections filed by the petitioner and the conclusion is only in the last paragraph of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in relation to such transactions, a finding is arrived at that they are not subjected to the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. It is not in dispute thereunder no appeal is provided there against. 15. The particulars required to be furnished in Form F clearly manifest that the proof required is as to whether the goods were 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. 16. The decision in Ashok Leyland Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in [2004] 134 STC 473 (SC) was followed by the Division Bench in the case of Ashoka Sweets v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011 46 VST 275 (Mad) wherein it was held that after verifying the details contained in Form F and other records that the goods had moved through delivery notes in Form XX, the assessing authority granted the relief accepting the return and that the entire turnover was exempted under Section 6A of the CST Act. It was further held that in the reassessment order, there was hardly any reference to the Form F declaration, which was originally accepted by the officer as true....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not to supply the dealer with any vehicle in response to such order. What was, therefore, relevant was the acceptance of firm orders occasioning the movement of vehicles out of the State of Bihar". 18. The second respondent ought to have embarked upon the exercise to examine the Form F declaration and render a finding on the aspect of appropriation. However, since these two important issues having not been dealt with by the second respondent, impugned order calls for interference. 19. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the finding rendered by the second respondent on the issue relating to stock transfer to Pondicherry Depot is set aside with the following directions: (i) The second respondent is directed to furnish the copies of the seized documents, which have been marked as book D and E within a reasonable time on costs being remitted by the petitioner for making out such copies. (ii) On receipt of the copies, the petitioner is granted 30 days time to submit their objections. (iii) On receipt of the objections, the second respondent shall verify the entire records provided, afford an opportunity of personal hearing, verify the reco....