TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ST) for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 (CST). 2. The appellant is a Private Limited Company Incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 (now the Companies Act, 2013). The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing edible oil from crude oil. The appellant sales the edible oil inter-state mostly on 'C' form issued by purchasing dealers. During the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007, the petitioner sold the goods to the various dealers, who had sent the form 'C' to the appellant. The original assessment of the appellant under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was completed by the assessing authority vide order dated 14.01.2009 by accepting 'C' form declaration produced by the appellant. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve wrongly relied on non-verified form 'C' and imposed a heavy amount of tax liability as well as penalty. The appellant has bonafidly sold the goods on the form 'C' submitted by the dealers of other states. The appellant had no machinery to check the genuineness of those certificates. It is for the State to verify these certificates and ought to have produced the adverse material to the appellant before recording any finding. Shri Choudarhy learned senior advocate further submits that the number of forms 'C' have wrongly been rejected merely on account of non-verification through non-statutory websites like TINXYXS. It is further submitted that all the two authorities and the Tribunal have not recorded any finding a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he genuineness of the certificate and declaration may be examined by the taxing authority but not the correctness or the truthfulness of the statements. The Sales Tax Authorities can examine whether the certificate is "farzi" or not, or if there was any collusion on the part of the selling dealer but not beyond. In view of the above, Shri Choudhary learned senior advocate has suggested the following substantial question of law involved in this appeal:- [1] Whether the order passed without confronting the appellant with the adverse material collected behind its back and without affording opportunity to rebut the same are vitiated in law as being contrary to the principles of natural justice. ? [2] Whether, on the facts and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Form 'C' certificate submitted by the appellant to the department, could not be verified by the Department. This facts had come to knowledge of the appellant in the year 2009 , but the appellant has not made any effort to contact the purchasing dealers for its verification. The appellant demanded the non-verified certificate from the department in order to take action against the dealers who issued these certificates. Still, the appellant has the liberty to recover the amount from the defaulter dealers. Hence, no inference is called for and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The appellant in course of his business sold oil to the dealers of the othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. The certificates submitted by the appellant were verified by the concerned authorities of the other States and also through TINXYXS and it has been found that these certificates are not genuine certificates, therefore, was no need to give findings on the issue of collusion between appellant and purchasers. 10. The appellant cannot escape from its liability to pay tax merely by submitting that he received the certificate and produced before the department and he has no concerned about its genuineness. Since 2015, the appellant has not taken any action against the dealer, who gave the certificate to the appellant. Similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in case M/s. Adani Enterprises Limited) Versus Commissioner of Com....