2019 (10) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uant to an audit conducted by the officials of the enforcement wing on 18.09.2012 and 13.12.2012. Based on the audit, a pre-revision notice dated 18.09.2013 was issued proposing to bring to tax several transactions on the ground that verification of the check-post movements indicated that the turnover from some transactions had escaped assessment and were thus, liable to brought to tax as purchase suppression. This stand of the revenue emanated from the opinion of the enforcement officials indicated at the time of inspection. 3. The petitioner responded that the movement noticed by the revenue wase in relation to machinery and equipments owned by it that were being shunted from its own stock yard/work sites to other stock yards/work site....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ure, Kolkatta 5752/20.1.11 150000 22500 172500 6900       Total 75,44,813 3,01,792 12.5%           Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin 2945/21.4.10 80000000 12000000 9,20,00,000 11500000 Tikitar Industries 65/4.5.10 494949 74242 5,69,191 71149 Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin 2944/7.5.10 50000000 7500000 5,75,00,000 7187500 Indofrench Engineers 2/12.8.10 150000 22500 1,72,500 21563 Simplex Infrastructure, Bangalore 354/9.8.10 100000 15000 1,15,000 14375 Madras Hand Tools 2885/31.8.10 62467 9370 71,837 8980 Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin 24889/2.1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... equipment was being transferred from one project/stock yard to another, such transfer ought to have been covered by statutory forms (Form F), in the absence of which this contention of the petitioner was not liable to be accepted. They also draw support from the position that according to them the equipments in question were not seen to have been reflected in the balance sheet of the petitioner. 7. Heard learned counsel in detail. 8. That the petitioner had transferred equipment from one State to another is not in dispute. What has to be determined is whether these equipments were owned by the petitiomer and were being deployed in the business of piling and other civil works in different locations/projects or whether they constituted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve not filed these records before the Enforcement Officers at the time of Audit, to substantiate their claim, though the transaction was said to be held on 10.07.2010 itself. Hence, the records now produced by the dealers seems to be fabricated on a later date after the Audit was over. More over, they have not also furnished the Form F Declarations duly obtained from their Karnataka Branch for the receipt of the Machine in question. The Form F Declaration is the "Statutory Form" prescribed for the proof of record for the Stock Transfer of goods, under the CST Act. The Certificate of the Auditor to the effect that the goods are still in their ownership is also not acceptable for the reasons explained above. In the absence o....