AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Rs. 4,41,96,000/- + excise duty Rs. 58,12,374/- = 5,00,08,374/- and to leavy tax thereon @ 8% amounting to Rs. 40,00,699.92? Facts: 5. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that assessment of the revisionist assessee for the A.Y. 2000-01 (U.P.) originally was completed by Assessment Order dated 30.12.2002. Subsequently, the department received certain information from the Central Excise Department regarding manufacture and certain transaction of the goods 'Paclitaxel' which is a raw material being used in manufacture of medicine for treatment of Cancer. On the basis of this information, proceedings under Section 21 of the Act were initiated. An ex-parte Assessment Order under Section 21 of the Act was passed on 27.9.2003. The assessee moved an application for recall of the ex-parte order under Section 30 of the Act. The ex-parte Assessment Order was recalled and the case was fixed for hearing. The assess again did not appear. Consequently, again an ex-parte order dated 8.4.2004 was passed. The assessee again moved an application under Section 30 of the Act and thereupon the ex-parte Assessment Order dated 8.4.2004 was recalled by order dated 20.5.2004. 6. Befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uation on which the tax is to be charged and the sale consideration should also be there for charging sales tax. (iii) The value declared in the invoices, were not adopted by the Sales Tax Authorities in proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, rather they adopted the figures as determined by Central Excise Authorities. The quantity on which the enhanced valuation was rejected by the Settlement Commission, could not have been modified by the Sales Tax Authorities. (iv) The valuation done by the Central Excise Authorities applying deeming provision for transfer of goods for captive consumption, cannot be adopted by the Sales Tax Authorities. (v) Once the Central Excise Duty has been paid on stock transfer quantity, then it cannot be said to be sale. (vi) No enquiry was done by the Sales Tax Department to disprove the fact of stock transfer as established in Central Excise proceedings. (vii) During the assessment year in question to prove stock transfer, submission of Form-F was not mandatory. (viii) All the transactions of the goods in question could not have been clubbed together to hold it to be deemed sale under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... donation of 25 grams 'Paclitaxel' to Dabur Research Foundation which he subsequently stated before the Tribunal to be 31 grams. Nothing was disclosed by the assessee with respect to the remaining quantity. Therefore, the Assessing Authority has not committed any error of law to hold the entire quantity to have been sold within the State of U.P. which was undoubtedly the evaded sale. He submits that the findings recorded in the impugned order are findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record. Therefore, the revision deserves to be dismissed. Discussion and Findings 10. I have carefully considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Original assessment records have also been produced before me pursuant to the order dated 15.2.2018 which has also been perused. 11. The revisionist-assessee is a big company. It is engaged in manufacture and sale of various commodities. At the time of original assessment proceedings, the assessee disclosed stock transfer of Rs. 178,56,45,444/- and also filed 254 Form 'F' to establish stock transfer. He had not disclosed the manufacture and sale or alleged stock transfer o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entire details and evidences on record and reached to the same conclusion. 14. Even before the Tribunal the assessee has not disputed the evaded sales of the balance quantity of 459 grams of 'Paclitaxel'. In the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, the dispute was raised only with respect to alleged stock transfer of 1040 grams and alleged donated quantity of 25 grams 'Paclitaxel'. It appears that during the course of arguments before the Tribunal the assessee took the stand that the stock transferred quantity is 1050 grams instead of 1040 grams and the donated quantity is 31 grams instead of 25 grams. The Tribunal considered the entire facts and evidences on record and recorded a finding of fact that there was no stock transfer and Farm F procured by the revisionist-assessee from its unit situate at Baddi, District - Solan on 24.11.2003 is merely to cover up the evasion. The Tribunal has given sufficient reasons to disbelieve the contention of the revisionist and to uphold the findings of the Assessing Authority and the 1st Appellate Authority. The Tribunal also found that the alleged dispatch could not be proved by the assessee in terms of Section 6-A of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch could not be proved by the assessee. The stock transfer could not be established. (viii) Nothing was disclosed by the assessee regarding allegedly donation of 25 grams 'Paclitaxel' to Dabur research foundation amounting to Rs. 1,16,000/- through invoices No.440407 dated 23.5.2000, 440386, dated 19.5.2000 and 440133 dated 18.5.2000. Subsequently, the alleged certificate of Dabur Research foundation dated 8.12.2003 for 25 gram 'Paclitaxel' of value Rs. 1,16,000/- was submitted in reassessment proceedings but before the Tribunal the assessee took the stand that 31 gram 'Paclitaxel' valuing Rs. 1,85,210/- was transferred to Dabur Research foundation. On being asked the assessee stated that invoice No.440039 dated 6.4.2000, Rs. 69,210/- was inadvertently not mentioned. The explanation submitted is afterthought. The alleged donation of 31 grams 'Paclitaxel' is not proved. (ix) Balance quantity of 443 gram 'Paclitaxel' was stated before the Tribunal by the assessee to have been used either in manufacture or is available in stock at Sahibabad. No such explanation or disclosure was made by the assessee either before the assessing authority in p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thin the prescribed time a declaration duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business or his agent or principal. Such declaration would contain the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority. Along with such declaration, the dealer is required to furnish the evidence of such dispatch of goods by reason of Act 20 of 2002. In the event, if it fails to furnish such declaration, by reason of legal fiction, such movement of goods would be deemed for all purposes of the said Act to have occasioned as a result of sale. Such declaration indisputably is to be filed in Form F. The said form is to be filled in triplicate. The prescribed authority of the transferee State supplies the said form. The original of the said form is to be filed with the transferor State and the duplicate thereof is to be filed before the authorities of the transferee State whereas the counterfoil is to be preserved by the person where the agent or principal of the place of business of the company is situated. 45. When the dealer furnishes the original of Form F to its assessing authority, an enquiry is required to be held. Such enquiry is he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ION OF SECTION 6-A OF THE CENTRAL ACT 72. A statute, as is well-known, must be interpreted having regard to the text and context thereof. Mischief rule may also be applied in a given case. 73. While construing a statute, the object of the Act must be taken into consideration. (See Killick Nixon Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 1 SCC 145). 74. Section 6-A of the Act although provides for a burden of proof, the same has to be read in the context of Section 6 of the said Act. Section 6 provides for liability to pay tax on inter-State sales. Any transaction which does not fall within the definition of 'sale' would not be exigible to tax, the burden whereof would evidently be on the assessee. We have noticed hereinbefore that whereas prior to the amendment in Sub-section (1) of Section 6-A the dealer had an option of filing a declaration in Form-F; after such amendment, he does not have such option, insofar as in terms of the amended provision, if the dealer fails and/or neglects to file such a declaration, the transaction would be deemed to be an inter-State sale. It is to be noticed that for the aforementioned purpose also, Parliament advisedly used the expression 'deemed'. If....