TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 1150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....015 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. Maharashtra Indian Soya Industries 16,43,12,676 6,58,175 16,36,84,501 CTO Malegaon Nasik Dif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pur 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/ 1327823 Nilesh Traders, Maharashtra Indian Soya Industries 27,71,73,920 5,36,316 27,66,37,604 CTO Malegaon Nasik Difference in C-form amount 2 06-07-2015 MH07/ 1408801 Radhakis-han Kalyan-mal & Co., Maharashtra Indian Soya Industries 16,06,468 16,06,468 - CTO Malegaon Nasik Illegal C-form issued 3 06-07-2015 MH017/ 0506213 Bhagwati Traders, Maharashtra Indian Soya Industries 23,20,06,963 - - CTO Malegaon Nasik Not issued by office 4 06-07-2015 MH07/ 1327352 Ratan Trad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 was issued to the petitioner, which was duly served upon the petitioner. The petitioner inspite of various opportunities granted was not able to prove that the C-Forms submitted by the petitioner firm is valid nor he has made any effort to prove that the C-Forms submitted by the petitioner is issued to him by the purchaser is valid and, therefore, by impugned order, it has been held that the valid-bogus C-Form was submitted by the petitioner and thus, the assessing authority after due consideration has reassessed @ 5% and also levied penalty. 8. As per reply filed by the respondents, the petitioner was supplied with the verification cer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 affirmed the demand. The petitioner was given enough opportunity by the department none of the material was produced by the petitioner to prove that the transactions effected by the petitioner are supported by the invalid C-Forms, which are not genuine. As per law prevailed during the relevant period, the petitioner is liable for deduction of tax paid goods only if transaction is supported by genuine C-Forms. It is very categorically admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that if refined soya oil is sold in Madhya Pradesh VAT Tax @ 5% is payable and if there is interstate sale against C-Form then CST @ of 2% is only payable. In case of genui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nguishable 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) 18 STJ 223 (Mad), the decision Milk Food Ltd V/s. Commissioner VAT & Ors. (supra) relates to penalty under Section 56 of DST Act. As per Section 50 (1) (a) of the DST Act, the dealer should know that the Forms are false or had reason to be believed that they are false has not been proved by the Sales Tax Authorities and, therefore, the Delhi High Court held that no penalty was payable by the appellant. In the present case, the issue regarding recovery of benefit of tax on producing C-Forms by the producing dealers. Later on, it was formed by the department that no such C-Forms were issued by the Delhi Commercial Tax Department and, therefore, demand of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l 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. However, by the impugned order, the same is disallowed because bogus C Forms have been submitted by the purchaser dealer to the selling dealer and on verification, it was found by the authority that no such C - Forms were ever issued to the purchaser dealer. The respondents in their reply very categorically pointed out that apart from the assessment year of 2003 - 04 to 2004 - 05, in subsequent year ie., from 2006 - 07 to 2011 - 12, the petitioner submitted C-Forms for inter-state sale of about Rs. 374 crores whereas, no such C-Forms were ever issued. This, it cannot be said that there is no evidence or material on record to show the involvement of the ....