TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appears for the other respondents. 2.The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the assessment order passed under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the year 2002-03. 3.The only issue involved is as regards the finality attached to the Form F declaration. The petitioner's contention is that the third respondent committed an error in disallowing the claim of exemption on the ground that the third parties are agents of the petitioner and not the employees of the petitioner, without taking into consideration the legal position that, once Form F declaration is filed, it is mandatory that exemption ought to be necessarily granted. Therefore, it is submitted that the third respondent ought to confine himself to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... NADU AND ANOTHER [2004 (volume 134) STC 473]. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of C.P.K.Trading Company V. Additional Sales Tax Officer, III Circle, Mattancherry [(1990) 76 STC 211 (Ker)], in which the Kerala High Court held that the assessing authority can conduct an enquiry to find out whether the particulars in the declaration furnished are correct, or dependable, or in accord with facts and accurate or genuine. That alone is the scope of the enquiry contemplated by section 6A(2) of the Act. On the conclusion of such an enquiry, he should record a definite finding, one way or the other. 7.It was further held that the nature of enquiry, that can be conduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment Wing Officer from the Senior Operation Officer of the petitioner-Corporation. Thus, in the absence of any enquiry, the conclusion arrived at by the respondent that it was a case of inter-state sale, deserves to be rejected. 9.Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.DHANDAPANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER [(1995) 96 STC 98 (Mad)], also considered an identical issue and held as follows: "17. As a result of the aforesaid discussions, the following conclusions emerge: (i) Rule 4(3A) of the CST (TN) Rules is directory and not mandatory Contravention of the said rule does not warrant punishment. When form F is filed by a dealer, he chooses or elects the mode of proving that the transfer of the good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The above decision would also go to establish that in the absence of any enquiry done by the Assessing Officer, the respondent cannot take a stand that the transaction was not one of stock transfer. 10.The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that merely because the goods were disposed of on the same day, in the same vehicle, would not by itself be a reason to disbelieve the transaction as a stock transfer. In this regard, reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU. REP.BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(CT) v. KALPANA LAMP COMPONENTS (PVT) LTD., [Tax Case Nos.548 and 549 of 1985 dt. 24.01.2001], wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench held has follows....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... FAC, Seconderabad Division, Hyderabad, dated 30.12.2015, certifying that the assessment orders under the APGST for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98, were completed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Market Street Circle and for the assessment period 1998-99 was finalized by the then Assistant Commissioner (CT)LTU Seconderabad Division under APGST Act and the assessee (petitioner) remitted tax under APGST Act for the goods received by them from various locations situated outside the State of Tamil Nadu. Further, the certificate states that the dealer company inter alia had received goods by Tada Depot from Chennai location during the assessment years 1994-95 to 1998-99 and paid taxes accordingly in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Further, t....