2018 (12) TMI 1010

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 23.03.2018. The challenge before the writ court was the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur on 05.03.2013 imposing certain tax as well as penalty and the order passed by the Revisional Forum vide its order dated 25.09.2012 where part of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner was partly modified. 3. The origin of the present litigation relates to the assessment year 2004-05. The appellant is said to be a dealer engaged in business of Cycle and Cycle parts. Allegation was made against him that he had availed concessional rate of tax by using a forged and fake C-Form. The detection was made by the department at a later stage a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dealer, by mis-application of the goods after he has purchased them or for any fraudulent mis-representation by him, penalty may be visited upon the selling dealer. 9. Taking cue from the said ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, submission of the counsel for the appellant is that some other courts have also taken similar view which is the case of Milk Food Limited Vs Commissioner Vat and others reported in (2013) 59VST1 (Delhi). Yet another case is TVL Sastha Enterprises rep. by its partner Mrs.V Unnamalai Vs The Appellate Authority Commissioner reported in (2011) 37VST94 (Madras) and case of Bell Ceramics Limited Gs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Transition-3), Bangalore reported in (2011) 38VST388 (Karnataka). 10. Learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied him with Form-C. Therefore, it becomes a case where Form-C was not tendered to the seller by any legal entity but by some elusive source which is unidentifiable. 12. This is why the learned Single Judge had this to say in paragraph-17 of the judgment: "17. So far as the judgments referred to by the petitioner is concerned, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner for the simple reason that in none of those cases the existence of purchasing dealer was doubted, whereas, in the instant case the purchasing dealers themselves were not traceable, coupled to the fact that TIN numbers were also found to be incorrect. Thus, those judgments are distinguishable on its facts itself. This fact stood established from the fact that t....