TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner on 16.04.2012. It was concluded that the petitioner had prepared records as if the goods were transported to Tamil Nadu from Maharashtra and sold within the State of Tamil Nadu as exempted sales. 4. It was also concluded that the petitioner after selling the goods either directly in other State or within the State of Maharashtra, created records to show as if the goods were sold in Tamil Nadu. 5. Since for the sales made in Tamil Nadu, complete address of the purchasers together with their TIN were not reflected in the bills/invoices raised by the petitioner and since the amount had allegedly received the payment in cash, the petitioner was held liable to tax under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1916. 6. It was further stated that the petitioner submitted Form F issued by the respondent to the dealers in Maharashtra for transfer of goods to Tamil Nadu but there was no proof that the goods were received by the petitioner in Tamil Nadu and sold locally and therefore it can be construed that the petitioner had effected local sale in Tamil Nadu after alleged branch transfer from Maharashtra and therefore the petitioner was liable to tax. 7. The petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ya oil. Point iv of page 3 of the notice under the Head of " Conclusion" speaks about the issuance of form " F" declarations for branch transfer of goods to Tamil Nadu. From the above, it was clear that there were no contradictory conclusions arrived at by the assessing officers with reference to the inspection reports of the Enforcement Wing Officers. Application of mind by the assessing officer to the material on record at the time of assessment is a justifiable ground for reassessment as per the decision reported in 95 STC.208(AP). If the estimated made by the Assessing Officer was a bonafide estimate and was based on a national basis, the fact there was no good proof in support of that estimate was immaterial prima facie. The Assessing Officer was the best judge of the situation, not anyone else's as per the decision reported in 32 STC.77(SC). The satisfaction arrived at by the Assessing Officers was based on existence of reasons to belief. Belief may be subjective, but reasons have to be objectivities as per the decision reported in 30 VST 356. 4. Whatever may be the quantum of the sales turnover the dealer was bound to mention, the name and full....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... during the years were one and the same as seen from the annexure II of the monthly returns filed for the year 2011-12. Most of the dealer are usually in the habit of making payments against their purchases by way of cheque or DD when the sales transaction runs to lakh of rupees. When enjoying the benefits of exemption, the dealer is bound to discharge the burden of proof by producing the following records as per Section 17 of the TNVAT/Act 2006. 1.Producing all sale bills for verification. 2. Sale invoice are to be issued as per Rule 6(4) of the TNVAT Rules 2007 3. Mode of payment details for the sales effected. 4.Storage facilities for refined soya oil. 5.Stock account as per form " H" as per Rule 6(3) (a) even in the case of trader. Since the dealer failed to discharge the burden of proof, the claim of exemption would be disallowed and treated as inter-state sales in the absence of valid proof for movement of goods from other states of Tamil Nadu through all the Check Posts. Further, the dealer reported sales turnover of refined Soya Oil during the year 2011-12 upto July 2011 as detailed below under TNVAT 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 2) * Penalty Due Rs. 76,56,488.00 Tax due Rs. 50,37,659.00 Paid Rs. ------------------ Balance Rs. 75,56,488.00 (* Table 3) 10. Challenging these orders, the petitioner has filed these two writ petitions. 11. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 12. It is submitted that the petitioner was engaged in sale of refined soya oil the State of Tamil Nadu. It is the contention of the petitioner that during the period in dispute upto 12.7.2011, the dealers engaged in sale of refined oil were exempt from tax up to a turnover of Rs. 500 crores as per Entry No. 65 to Part B of the IV Schedule to the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006. Total and taxable interstate sales turnover determined treating the interstate sales not covered by 'C' Forms @ 4% Rs. 12,59,41,489.00 Tax due Rs. 50,37,659.00 Paid Rs. ------------------ Balance Rs. 50,37,659.00 13. Since with effect from 12.7.2011, the exemption was restricted to Rs. 5 crores, the petitioner decided to close down its business and ultimately closed on its business. The learned senior counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be allowed and therefore the petitioner was liable to pay tax at 4% as not covered by "C" Form. 19. It has been further stated that there were no stocks at the time of inspection on 26.9.2011 and 27.9.2011 and therefore petitioner was not only liable to pay tax as proposed in the notice but also penalty under Section 27 (3) (c) of the TN VAT Act, 2006. 20. It is noticed that the impugned orders the respondent has disputed the claim of the petitioner regarding branch transfer even though the respondent's counter part has accepted the same in the State of Maharashtra for the period between 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. In the impugned order, it has been observed that "If the dealers had actually sold the refined soya oil locally, they might had mentioned the buyers full and correct address with TIN of all the buyers, further the dealer did not produce any xerox copies of the sale invoice in support of the claim. 21. The amount demanded in the impugned order proceed on the assumption, presumptions and conjectures that the goods were not received and therefore the petitioner had wrongly claimed exemption under the exemption is available for local sale up to Rs. 500 crores wh....