TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... similar issue is involved, both the appeals are being decided by common order. For the sake of convenience, facts from VATAP No. 18 of 2019 have been taken. Following substantial questions of law have been claimed: "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Statutory notice in Form N-2 issued in the name of Gujarat is not illegal and makes the assessment bad abinitio, when the jurisdiction of the assessing authority is confined to the boundaries of the State only? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the reassessment and consequential penal proceedings are not barred by limitation? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceeding for levy of penalty without st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t had conducted sales in 2nd and 3rd quarter of the said assessment year to the tune of Rs. 5,37,68,173/- and Rs. 5,10,70,645/- respectively, the tax for the same has been charged but nil returns were filed. Notice for re-assessment under Section 17 of the Act was issued and demand of Rs. 38,47,005/- was created. It was observed in the order that action for penalty under Section 38 of the Act will be taken separately. The order of re-assessment was accepted by the appellant and no appeal was filed. Notice dated 5.4.2011 was issued for penal action. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant and vide order dated 18.5.2011, penalty of Rs. 1,29,45,225/- was imposed under Section 38 of the Act. The appeal filed before the 1st Appellate Authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ub-section (2) of section 14, the assessing authority shall, in respect of each selected case, serve on the dealer concerned the prescribed notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of the returns filed by him relating to the said period under assessment (hereinafter referred to in this section as 'assessment period'): PROVIDED that the assessment period covered by a notice referred to in the foregoing provision shall not exceed one year and such notice shall be served on the dealer before the expiry of one year from, the last date prescribed for filing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the goods in question were received by way of stock transfer against 'F' form from Gujarat and statutory forms ST-38 were issued. The goods were sold to M/s Jindal Stainless Steels Ltd. for which ST-38 forms were issued and even C-4 certificates were given by the appellant so that the purchaser can claim input tax credit. The contention is that the sales could not be kept out of books of account and there was no question of suppression. It is further argued that Mr. Ram Tirath who was authorised to file the returns, played mischief and did not disclose the turnover of two quarters in the returns, hence no case for penalty under Section 38 of the Act is made out. Argument is buttressed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e argument raised. It was as a result of information given by a person connected with the business that the sales made by the appellant in 2nd and 3rd quarter saw the light of day. It would be pertinent to note at this stage that it is not disputed by the appellant that tax was duly charged from the purchaser but not deposited. Section 38 of the Act envisages imposition of penalty where a return furnished is false or incorrect in any material particular. In the case in hand, the appellant had successfully suppressed the turnover not only in the returns but also in proceedings under Section 15(3) of the Act and the tax charged was illegally retained by the appellant. In such event, even if the transaction was disclosed in the books of ....