TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dentical, therefore, with the consent of the parties all the petitions are being disposed by this common order. 2. Brief facts noticed are that the assessee is a registered dealer and during the course of its business had sold Mustard Oil to two firms, namely M/s Arvind Traders and M/s Nakoda Traders, Kota by obtaining declaration form ST-17A from the respective purchasers. Later-on it transpired that both the firms were held to be bogus / non genuine and, therefore, the Assessing Officer, in the assessment order, after issuing show cause notice and considering the reply, came to the conclusion that both the firms are non genuine / bogus and there is misuse of declaration form and accordingly differential sales tax was charged from the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other similarly situated traders. It was within the inherent knowledge of the assessee that they are selling goods to such parties who are not genuine or bogus and thus the AO was well justified in charging the differential sales tax and it was a misuse of declaration form ST-17A. 6. Learned counsel also contended that only differential sales tax and interest have been charged, which was the benefit taken by the assessee and loss of Revenue cannot be permitted. She also relied on the judgment rendered by the apex court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi & Others v. Shri Krishna Engg. Co. & Others (2005) 2 SCC 692. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that admittedly all the transactions are by account pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion ST-17 are mandatory in nature or there can be any relaxation in concessional rate beyond the provision of law? (2) Whether the Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law in not appreciating that a cancelled / rejected declaration form is no form in the eye of law and the liability of tax is consequential on the seller?" 10. It may be that M/s Arvind Traders and M/s Nakoda Traders, Kota, have been found to be non genuine or bogus by the Revenue Authorities, but at a later point of time, which is admitted in the instant case. The fact remains that the transaction of purchase/sale is prior to 31.3.2002, at that point of time both the firms were having valid registration certificate. Therefore, in my view the AO was not justified in holdi....