TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 1150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 and W.P.No.5860/2015 relates to the assessment period from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008. 3. By these writ petitions, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 6.7.2015, whereby, the respondent No.1 has imposed Central Sales Tax and penalty under Section 21(2) of M.P. VAT Act, 2002 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act equal to 3.5 times of the tax so assessed, which has resulted in raising a demand of Rs. 19,11,82,023/- in (W.P.No.5857/2015), Rs. 23,97,57,066/- (W.P.No.5860/2015) and Rs. 25,46,55,684/- (W.P.No.5859/2015) respectively, against the petitioner. 4. In W.P.No.5857/2015, W.P.No.5860/2015 and W.P.No.5859/2015, for the assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, the petitioner has submitted the following C-Forms :- Details of the C-Forms submitted by the petitioner are as under :- WP/5857/2015 Sr. No. Date of order C-Form No. Name of issuing Co. Issued to whom Amount mentioned by the Co. in C-Form Actual amount mentioned in C-Form Difference in amount Name of the office Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 06-07-2015 MH07/ 0345013 Shri Nagesh-war Trading Co.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ales Corporation, Maharashtra Indian Soya Industries 27,80,59,297 2,78,262 27,77,81,035 CTO Malegaon Nasik Difference in C-form amount 6 06-07-2015 MH07/ 0278247 Gagan Traders, Maharashtra Indian Soya Industries 28,33,71,728 4,31,654 28,29,40,074 CTO Malegaon Nasik Difference in C-Form amount 7 06-07-2015 R/C/07/ 1334091 H. K.Traders, Bharatpur Indian Soya Industries 6,75,809 - - CTO Bhartpur Rajasthan Not issued by office 8 06-07-2015 UK/VAT/ C/ 2007/ 235053 Anand Enterprises, Roorkee Indian Soya Industries 7,32,874 - - Asstt. Commissioner, Roorkee Details not provided by Co. 9 06-07-2015 UPCT/ C08/ 0464727 Sudha Oil, Agra Indian Soya Industries 14,36,713 - - Asstt. Com missioner, Division-14 , Agra Not issued by office W. P. No. 5860 of 2015 Sr. No. Date of order C-Form No. Name of issuing Co. Issued to whom Amount mentioned by the Co. in C-Form Actual amount mentioned in C-Form Difference in amount Name of the office Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 06-07-2015 MH07....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be not genuine and, therefore, reassessment was done and the petitioner has been assessed @ of 5% along with three times penalty of the tax. It is also pointed out that the issue of genuineness of C-Form come before this court in the case of M/s. Sarvottam Vegetables Oil Refinary Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State of M.P. & Ors. passed in W.P.No.6227/2014 and the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to dismiss the petition vide order dated 1.9.2015 and has held that the re-assessment done on the basis of report in respect of C-Form is correct and, therefore, the controversy or grounds raised in the writ petition have already been decided and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. In all three matters, the respondents sent the C-Form for verification to the concerned State from where the C-Forms were issued to the purchaser. The C-Forms were sent for verification and the concerned State informed that the few C-Forms were not not issued to the purchaser, bogus C-Form for interstate sale was submitted by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was re-opened under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, read with Section 21(2) of the M.P. VAT Act, 2002 and a show cause notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not genuine or not issued by the sales tax officers. There is no mala fide action or any deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to make use of any false documents and prayed for quashment of impugned order dated 7.7.2015. 10. Per contra, Shri P. Bhargava, Dy. Adv. General appearing on behalf of the respondents - State submits that at the time of assessment, the petitioner submitted the C-Forms issued by the assessing dealer and on that basis deduction was given to him. Thereafter, the department got verification of C-Form from the concerned tax authority of State of Maharashtra, State of Rajasthan, State of Uttarakhand and State of U. P. who made it clear that some of the C-Forms were not issued to the dealer by their office and none of the C-Forms out of total C-Forms, which were filed by the petitioner for the year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 were found to be valid / verified and those C-Forms for interstate sale were found to be invalid and fake. On this basis assessment case was re-opened under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Section 21(2) of the M.P. VAT Act, 2002. The department after hearing the petitioner through his representation affirme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion Bureau. The matter was reported to the higher authority, but at the best to the knowledge of the respondents none of the matter has been forwarded to the C.A.G., Economic Offence Wing of the Government of M.P. or C.B.I. for the investigation in the matter. 13. The question involved in these petitions is squarely covered by the decision of this court in the case of M/s. Sarvottam Vegetables Oil Refinary Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State of M.P. & Ors. passed in W.P.No.6227/2014. Para 14 to 17 are relevant which reads as under :- "14. In the case of State of Madras v/s. Radio & Electricals (supra), the issue was different and, therefore, the same is distinguishable on facts. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Rajkumar Chawla V/s. State of M.P. & Ors., reported as 2005 (5) STJ 404 (MP), Steel Authrotiy of India Ltd. V/s. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jabalpur & Ors., reported as 2012 (20) STJ 391 (MP), unreported decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Milk Food Ltd V/s. Commissioner VAT & Ors., dated 4th February, 2013 and in the matter of Sastha Enterprises V/s. Appellate Authority, Commissioner (CT) II (FAC) reported as (2011) 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is under no obligation to see that the application of the goods for the purpose for which it was represented that they were intended to be used. This indicates that for the act's of the purchaser dealer, the selling dealer cannot be held responsible. In A.D.M. Sotres & Anr. V/s. Commissioner of Sales Tax & Ors., reported as 1966 18 STC 305 PH, it was held that the inaction, neglect or even fraud of a registered purchasing dealer cannot result in penalising the innocent selling dealer in the absence of evidence of his having been a party to any fraud, deception or misrepresentation. It is true that the exemption allowed to the petitioner in the original assessment order is based on C-Forms obtained from the purchasing dealer of the goods. It is equally true that once the transaction of the transit sales is over, the petitioner has no control over the purchaser and he has no occasion to verify the C Forms produced from the side of the purchaser. The petitioner has only submitted the document as it is given to him by the purchaser. On the basis of the documents produced from the seller as well as the purchaser, the petitioner was granted concession in the original assessment order....