The Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove the concession claimed by the assessee in original proceedings shifted to the department on reassessment proceedings under the Sales Tax Tribunal.
M/S Amrit Steels, the applicant made a central sale amounting to Rs. 5,43,43,928/- of Form – C. The revisionist made the central sale to one M/s Yash Traders, Rajasthan and claimed concession rate on the strength of Form – C no. 4930498. The said claim was stated to be covered by 23 invoices to the tune of Rs. 2,11,47,201/-.
The Assessing Authority, at the time of framing the assessment order, sought verification of the said form from its counterpart, i.e., sale tax authorities in Rajasthan, to which a report was submitted that only one transaction having bill no. 45 for a sum of Rs. 2,75,094/. has been disclosed by the purchasing dealer.
On getting the said information, the Assessing Authority, while passing the assessment order dated 19.01.2019, accepted the one sale made to the said party & granted concession, but imposed a higher rate of tax on the other 22 sales.
The applicant submitted that the revisionist made a sale to a registered dealer against 23 invoices and the goods have been duly moved from the State of Uttar Pradesh to the State of Rajasthan. The revisionist, being a registered dealer, ought to have charged a higher rate as prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Act, but since the purchasing dealer had furnished Form – C and on the strength of the said Form – C, a concession rate was charged. Therefore, the revisionist has rightly charged a 2% tax on its sales made to M/s Yash Traders, Rajasthan against 23 invoices.
The revisionist, being a prudent businessman, has seen Form – -C as there was neither any cutting nor overwriting and the same was duly issued by the Sales Tax authorities of the respective States, has accepted the same as the same bear the stamp of the issuing authority of Rajasthan.
He further submitted that the revisionist has no control over the purchasing dealer as to whether he has shown its purchases in its books of account or as to how the goods are being used subsequently. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Star Paper Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax [Sales Tax Revision No. 46/1991, decided on 20.10.2003] and prays for allowing the revision.
Per contra,the respondent submitted that the revisionist has miserably failed to justify its sale before the authorities below. The matter has been concluded by concurrent findings of fact against the revisionist as allegedly, sales made by the revisionist were not covered from Form – C.
It was argued that the present proceedings are regular and the onus is upon the assessee to prove its claim of concession rate of tax. Form – C submitted by the revisionist was duly verified and the information was received from the corresponding State, i.e., Rajasthan, that only one sale has been shown by the purchasing dealer in its books of account and the benefit of the same has been given and so far as other purchases are concerned, the same has rightly been disbelieved and a higher rate of tax has been imposed. He prays for the dismissal of the revision.
It was evident that the sales have been disclosed by the revisionist through 23 invoices for a sum of Rs. 2,11,47,201/- to M/s Yash Traders, for which one Form – C No. 4930498 has been submitted, but on verification from the corresponding State, i.e., Rajasthan, the information was given that the purchasing dealer has only shown purchase against one invoice no. 45 dated 12.12.2013 for a sum of Rs. 2,75,049/-. The benefit of concession has been given to the revisionist for the said invoice.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Piyush Agrawal, “Once the corresponding State authority has sent information that only one purchase made by the purchasing dealer could be verified, the benefit of other purchases as alleged to be made by the revisionist against the said Form – C cannot be granted.”
The Supreme Court in the case of M/s I.T.C. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi and another, [2004 (7) SCC 591] has held that “the Assessing Authority is competent to scrutinize the certificate to find out the contents to be genuine and he is competent to inquire about the contents of the certificate to satisfy himself that the goods purchased are verifiable and once the truth of declaration on verification was not found to be correct, the benefit cannot be granted.”
The revisionist has failed to discharge its burden by any cogent material and dismissed the petition.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
