Sarvotam Vegetable Products v. State of Rajasthan — 1993 DIGILAW 190 (RAJ)

Honble MATHUR, J.—In all these writ petitions common questions of law involve, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. (2) For the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions the facts given in the case of Sarvotam Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. Merta City vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1838 of 1992) are taken into consideration. (3) The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the impugned notice dated 9.3.1992 (Annex.7) may be quashed and the respondents may be restrained from passing the assessment order in pursuance of the aforesaid notice and recover any tax, interest and penalty from the petitioner. It is also prayed that it may be declared that the production of C Form is not necessary in the present case. (4) The petitioner is a duly constituted and registered private limited company and all the Directors of the petitioner company are citizens of India. The petitioner sold edible oil manufactured by it in the course of inter-State sale through the Commission Agents and through prescribed declaration in C Form prescribed under Section 8 (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (referred to herein after as the Act of 1956). The same were duly furnished by the petitioner to the Assessing Authority. The said C Forms were duly issued to the purchasing dealer and bears the seal of the office of the C.T.O. in Gujarat State from where they were duly issued to the purchasing dealer. The purchasing dealer is duly registered under the Act of 1956 as well as the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. The petitioner charged the concessional rate of tax at the rate of 1-1/2% under the notification dated 26.12.1986 and the later notification dated 17.4.1990 on such sales as it satisfied the twin conditions given in these notifications. Copies of these notifications have been placed on the record as Annexs. 1 and 2 respectively. The respondent No.2 has now initiated certain anti evasion proceedings against the petitioner on the allegation that from the verification of the record of such purchasing dealer, the said C Forms in question were shown to have been issued to some third party and, therefore, additional tax alongwith interest and penalty is sought to be imposed on the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has now initiated certain anti evasion proceedings against the petitioner on the allegation that from the verification of the record of such purchasing dealer, the said C Forms in question were shown to have been issued to some third party and, therefore, additional tax alongwith interest and penalty is sought to be imposed on the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner being the selling dealer is not expected under the law to go into the details or depth as to whether the purchasing dealer is duly registered or not and whether the C forms issued by the concerned C.T.O. are correct or not. The petitioner not questioned and charged the concessional rate of tax. It is alleged that if at all such declaration forms given by the purchasing dealer were found to be erroneous then the selling dealer cannot be held responsible for this conduct of the purchasing dealer. It is alleged that there is no allegation against the petitioner selling agent of any fraud, collusion or misrepresentation. Neither the factum of inter-State sale is denied nor it is alleged by the Revenue that the said declaration forms are not genuine. In the alternative, it is submitted that the C forms were not at all required to be furnished in the present case. The notifications Annexs. 1 and 2 purported to have been issued under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Act of 1956 do not require that the selling dealer is under an obligation to produce the C forms. It is submitted that in view of sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Act of 1956 which starts with a non-obstante clause, the requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 8 is not necessary and as such the selling dealer is not under an obligation to produce the C forms of the purchasing dealer. It is also alleged that the notifications which have been issued by the State Government under Section 8(5) of the Act no where require the production of the C forms of the purchasing dealer in order to get a concessional rate of tax. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the respondent No.2. It is also alleged that the notifications which have been issued by the State Government under Section 8(5) of the Act no where require the production of the C forms of the purchasing dealer in order to get a concessional rate of tax. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the respondent No.2. It is also submitted that the petitioner has also received the impugned notice dated 7.11.1992 from the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Anti-Evasion Circle, Jaipur I, Jaipur calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be assessed for alleged evasion of tax. Therefore, it is submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Anti-Evasion Circle, Jaipur, who has issued the notice dated 7.11.1992, is seized of the matter and the subsequent notice cannot be issued. (5) A reply has been filed by the respondents and the respondents have pointed out that the petitioner has voluntarily submitted the C forms of the purchasing dealer and it was found that the purchasing dealers C forms were cancelled long back and at the time when the transaction was entered into by the petitioner the purchasing dealer was not a registered dealer and the C forms were cancelled long back. It is also alleged that a big scandal has been disclosed by the Anti. Evasion authorities that such kind of dealers whose registration has already been cancelled have entered into shame transactions so as to avoid tax. A number of instances have been given by the respondents and it has been alleged that all the purchasing dealers to whom the selling dealer has supplied the edible oil at concessional rate were not registered dealers and their C forms have already been cancelled. A number of documents have been produced on the record to show that all these transactions have been entered into by the selling dealer with the purchasing dealers whose registrations have been cancelled and likewise the C forms have also been cancelled. In that connection, my attention was also invited to the communication received from the Sales Tax Officer, Bombay in respect of M/s. Shanti Lal & Co., Bombay in which it has been mentioned that M/s. Shanti Lal & Co. In that connection, my attention was also invited to the communication received from the Sales Tax Officer, Bombay in respect of M/s. Shanti Lal & Co., Bombay in which it has been mentioned that M/s. Shanti Lal & Co. has applied for cancellation of its registration certificates because M/s. Shanti Lal & Co., Bombay had discontinued its business from 1.12.1990 and accordingly both the registration certificates of that firm were cancelled with effect from 1.12.1990 and he also sent a copy of the cancellation order dated 1.12.1990. It is also said that no declaration such as C or F, E1 or E2 forms have been issued to M/s. Shanti Lal & Co. by the Sales Tax Department. Therefore, the respondents have pointed out that sham transactions have been entered into with these kind of firms by the petitioner so as to avail the concessional rate of tax on inter-State trade or commerce with a view to avoid payment of normal rate of tax. It is also submitted that while availing the concession under Section 8 (5) read with the notifications Annexs. 1 and 2 still the requirement of submission of C forms under Section 8 (4) of the Act is not dispensed with. (6) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. (7) Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the basic question involved in this writ petition and the connected writ petitions is whether in such inter-State trade or commerce the requirement of submitting the C forms is mandatory or not. (8) In order to appreciate the controversy in this batch of writ petitions, it will be useful to refer to Section 8 of the Act of 1956, which reads as under: — "8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. (1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — (a) sells to the Government any goods; or (b) sells to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3); shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be four per cent of his turnover. (1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — (a) sells to the Government any goods; or (b) sells to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3); shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be four per cent of his turnover. (2) The tax payable by any dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of goods in the course of inter State trade or commerce not falling within sub-section (1) — (a) in the case of declared goods, shall be calculated at twice the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State ; and (b) in the case of goods other than declared goods, shall be calculated at the rate of ten per cent or at the rate applicable to the sale of purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State, whichever is higher; and for the purpose of making any such calculation any such dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the Sales Tax Law of the appropriate State, notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not be so liable under that law. (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1A) of section 6 or sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of this section, the tax payable under this Act by a dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of any goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase of which is, under the Sales Tax Law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally or subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than four per cent whether called a tax or fee or by any other name, shall be nil or, as the case may be, shall be calculated at the lower rate. Explanation: —For the purposes of this sub-section a sale or purchase of any goods shall not be deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the Sales Tax Law of the appropriate State if under that law the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions or the tax is levied on the sale or purchase of such goods at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods. (3) The goods referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) — (b) are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him or subject to any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power; (c) are containers or other materials specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods, being containers or materials intended for being used for the packing of goods for sale; (d) are containers or other materials used for the packing of any goods or classes of goods specified in the certificate of registration referred to in clause (b) or for the packing of any containers or other materials specified in the certificate of registration referred to in clause (c). (4) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner — (a) a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority; or (b) if the goods are sold to the Government, not being a registered dealer, a certificate in the prescribed form duly filled and signed by a duly authorised officer of the Government : Provided that the declaration referred to in clause (a) is furnished within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the State Government may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, direct,— (a) that no tax under this Act shall be payable by any dealer having his place of business in the State in respect of the sales by him, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, from any such place of business of any such goods or classes of goods as may be specified in the notification, or that the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the notification; (b) that in respect of all sales of goods or sales of such classes of goods as may be specified in the notification, which are made, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, by any dealer having his place of business in the State or by any class of such dealers as may be specified in the notification to any person or to such class of persons as may be specified in the notification, no tax under this Act shall be payable or the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the notification." (9) We are concerned here with sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Act of 1956. Section 8(5) of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause. The basic idea behind sub-section (5) of Section 8 is that if the State Government feels in the public interest to grant concession on inter-State trade or commerce then it can exempt the tax or reduce the tax on inter-State trade or commerce under the Act payable by any dealer having his place of business in the State in respect of sales by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce from any such place of business of any such goods or classes of goods as may be specified in the notification. (10) Mr. (10) Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that sub-section (5) which starts with a non-obstante clause is an independent mode of tax and it is a class apart from the other mode of tax as given in clause (1) to sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act. Sub-section (5) of section 8 is a Code in itself and the very fact that it starts with a non-obstante clause it has nothing to do with clause (1) to sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act and it is to be governed by the notification which may be issued by the State Government from time to time. In the purported exercise of power under sub-section (5) of Section 8 the State Government has issued a notification (Annex.1 ) dated 26.12.1986, which reads as under : "Notification No. F.4 (92) FD/Gr. IV/82-42, Jaipur dated 26th Dec. 1986. S.O. 154. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act No.74 of 1956), the State Government being satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest hereby directs with immediate effect that the tax payable under sub-section (1) of the said Section by any dealer, having his place of business in the State, in respect of sale by him, from any such place of business in the course of inter-State trade or commerce of solvent extracted edible oil shall be calculated at the lower rate of 1%, on the condition that claim regarding partial exemption under Finance Department Notification No. F. 4 (72) FD/Gr.IV/81-18 dated May 6, 1986 shall not be made and allowed." (11) The State Government also issued the Notification dated 17.4.1990, which reads as under:— "218. Notification No. F. 4 (90) FD/Gr. IV/82-101, Jaipur dated 17.04.1990 S.O.4- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 74 of 1956), and in supersession of this department notification No. F. 4 (92) FD/Gr. Notification No. F. 4 (90) FD/Gr. IV/82-101, Jaipur dated 17.04.1990 S.O.4- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 74 of 1956), and in supersession of this department notification No. F. 4 (92) FD/Gr. IV/82-41, dated 26.12.1986, the State Government being of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, hereby directs with immediate effect that the tax payable under sub-section (1) of the said section by any dealer, having his place of business in the State in respect of sale by him, from any such place of business in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, of all edible oils excluding (1) Hydrogenated oil (including vanaspati) (2) Palm oil whether refined or not, and (3) refined coconut oil shall be calculated at the rate of 1-1/2% on the following conditions : — (1) That such dealer proves to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority that the oil seeds used in the manufacture of such edible oils have already been suffered tax under the Act @ 3% within the State of Rajasthan ; and (2) That such dealer shall not be entitled to claim partial exemption under Finance Department Notification No. F. 4 (72) FD/Gr. IV/81-18, dated 6.05.1986 and as amended from time to time." (12) By the notification dated 26.12.1986 the State Government having satisfied . that it is in the public interest so to do that tax payable under sub-section (1) of the said section by the dealer having its place of business in the State in respect of sales by him from any such place of business in the course of inter-State trade or commerce of solvent extracted edible oil shall be calculated at the lower rate of 1% on the condition that the claim regarding partial exemption under Finance Department Notification dated 6.5.1986 shall not be made and allowed. Likewise, in the notification dated 17.4.1990, the State Government reduced the incidence of tax on all edible oils excluding Hydrogenated oil (including Vanaspati), Palm oil whether refined or not and refined coconut oil. Likewise, in the notification dated 17.4.1990, the State Government reduced the incidence of tax on all edible oils excluding Hydrogenated oil (including Vanaspati), Palm oil whether refined or not and refined coconut oil. It was subject to the condition that the dealer shall have to prove that the oil seeds used in the manufacture of such edible oil have already been suffered tax under the Act @ 3% within the State and such dealer shall not claim any partial exemption under the Finance Department Notification dated 6.5.1986 and as amended from time to time. (13) Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that whatever conditions which have been laid down in these notifications shall govern and, the conditions of sub-section (4) that the requirement of submission of C form of such inter-State trade or commerce is not necessary. (14) As against this, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, has very strenuously urged that sub-section (5) of Section 8 only permits the State Government to reduce the incidence of taxation as prescribed by sub-section (1) and (2) and it does not totally obliterate the impact of clause (1) of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act of 1956. (15) I have given my earnest consideration to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel. (16) One thing is very clear that the incidence of taxation is on the seller and it is the duty of the seller to pay the tax on the sales made by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Section 8 provides the rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Sub-section (1) says that every dealer who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce sells any goods to the Government or to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to sub-section (3) shall be liable to pay tax under this Act which shall be 4% of his turnover. Sub-section (1) says that every dealer who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce sells any goods to the Government or to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to sub-section (3) shall be liable to pay tax under this Act which shall be 4% of his turnover. Now, sub-section (5) gives a discretion to the State Government that if it thinks proper in the public interest then by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette can lay down that no tax under this Act shall be payable by the dealer having his place of business in the State in respect of the sales by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, from any such place of business of any such goods or classes of goods as may be specified in the notification, or that the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the notification and on such conditions as it may deem fit. Clause (b) of sub-section (5) says that the State Government can also issue a notification in the public interest in respect of all sales of goods or sales of such classes of goods as may be specified in the notification which are made in the course of inter-State trade or commerce by any dealer having his place of business in the State or by any class of such dealers as may be specified in the notification to any person or such class of person as may be specified in the notification, no tax under this Act shall be payable or the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the notification. The idea is that the State Government can undo the incidence of taxation as given in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act of 1956. The State Government can by notification declare that such person or such class of goods shall be totally exempted from the incidence of taxation or it can lower the rate of tax as mentioned in sub-section (1) or sub- section (2). (17) The contention of Mr. The State Government can by notification declare that such person or such class of goods shall be totally exempted from the incidence of taxation or it can lower the rate of tax as mentioned in sub-section (1) or sub- section (2). (17) The contention of Mr. Kothari is that sub-section (5) is a code in itself and the State Government can lay down the condition that in under what circumstances and what class of goods or what class of persons will be exempted from tax or they will be charged at lower rate of tax in the course of the inter-State trade or commerce. The State Government has issued two notifications i.e. Annexs. 1 and 2 and in them they have nowhere laid down that selling dealer will have to produce the C forms showing that the purchasing dealer is duly registered and he has been given the C forms. The requirement of submitting the C forms is not there in the notifications issued by the State Government. Therefore, it is not the duty of the seller, in the course of the inter-State trade or commerce to produce the C forms of the purchasing dealer. Prima facie the argument advanced by Mr. Kothari appears to be attractive. But if we probe into the matter closely then it transpires that what sub-section (5) has done is only permitted the State Government to dispense with the incidence of taxation totally or reduce the incidence of taxation as it may deem fit in the public interest in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. But it does not say that the other requirements of sub-section (4) shall be dispensed with totally. Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 8 only gives an cabling power to the State Government to do away with the incidence of taxation under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) or reduce the rate of tax. It has been clearly mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 8 that the State Government can lower the rates specified in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 8. This expression very clearly lays down that sub-section (5) of Section 8 is an exception to sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 8 of the Act of 1956. This expression very clearly lays down that sub-section (5) of Section 8 is an exception to sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 8 of the Act of 1956. It is true that the non-obstante clause i.e. not withstanding anything contained in this section has been used, but this non-obstante clause has to be read in context with sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 8 of the Act of 1956 and not beyond that. If the Legislature intended to completely do away with the requirements of sub-sections (1) to (4) of section 8 of the Act of 1956 then nothing would have prevented the Legislature to have added the whole clauses of it in sub-section (5). But the Legislature has chosen only to give a limited discretion to the State Government that by a notification it can dispense/reduce the normal rate of 4% taxation as specified in sub-sections (1) and (2). That shows that the expression notwithstanding anything contained (non-obstante clause) has to be read as an exception to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 8 and the other provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) have not been dispensed with. The non-obstante clause as observed in the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh (Fifth Edition 1992) is: "A clause beginning with notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in some particular provision in the Act or in some particular Act or in any law for the time being in force, is sometimes appended to a section in the beginning, with a view to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict an overriding effect over the provision or Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause. It is equivalent to saying that inspite of the provision of Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause, the enactment following it will have its full operation or that the provisions embraced in the non-obstante clause will not be an impediment for the operation of the enactment." (18) That means that so far as the doing away with the incidence of taxation in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the State Government has full authority to dispense with such incidence of taxation as mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (2) or it can lower the rate of tax in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Therefore, the expression "notwithstanding anything contained here has to be read vis-a-vis sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of Section 8 of the Act of 1956. The taxing statute has to be construed strictly and on construing sub-section (5) it only shows that this sub-section has been enacted in order to confer a discretion on the State Government that by issuing a proper notification it can totally dispense with the incidence of taxation in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or it can lower the rate of taxation. The whole idea is that the State Government can dispense with the taxation or lower the rate of tax on such inter-State trade or commerce. Therefore, we have to construe the non-obstante clause to this extent only and it cannot be construed to mean that whole of the sub-sections i.e. (1) to (4) of Section 8 of the Act have been dispensed with. It is only an enabling provision for the State to do away with the incidence of taxation in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or it can lower the rate of tax. No further concession has been given by this enabling provision. Therefore, in these circumstances the impact of sub-section (4) cannot be done away. Sub-section (4) requires that the selling dealer will have to furnish to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority. That means the requirement for obtaining a concessional rate of tax the incumbent will have to give a declaration which is normally called C form in the commercial parlance evidencing of the fact that the dealer with whom he entered into business is a registered dealer in a particular trade or business. (19) Apart from this when the petitioner claims a concessional rate of tax for the business transacted in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, then he has to establish prima facie that the transaction was in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and it is always open for the assessing authority to ascertain whether the so-called business/transaction was in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. If the assessing authority on the basis of cogent evidence comes to the conclusion that the transaction was not in the course of inter-State trade or commerce then too also the selling dealer cannot seek the benefit of concessional rate of tax. In order to avail this concessional rate of tax the selling dealer has to satisfy the prescribed authority that the transaction was in the course of inter-State trade or commerce then and then alone he will be entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of tax. Even otherwise also there is no prohibition for the prescribed authority i.e. the assessing authority to enquire into the matter as to whether the transaction was in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the legitimate enquiry initiated by the assessing authority to ascertain whether the transaction was a bona fide one in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. If the prescribed authority comes to the conclusion that the transaction was not in the course of inter- State trade or commerce then it can certainly deal with such dealers in accordance with law after giving him necessary particulars to meet with such a situation. Thus, a legitimate enquiry by the prescribed authority cannot be prevented. (20) Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the Revenue and Mr. Kothari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have invited my attention to various decisions to show that the finding in certain cases was not correct. But it is all questions of facts that whether the assessment made by the prescribed authority in the given facts was correct or not. Therefore, I need not to refer those cases because all the cases cited from both the sides deal with the questions of facts and in the given facts the finding given by the assessing authority was found to be correct and in certain other cases the finding was not found to be correct. These all are questions of facts which will depend upon factual enquiry which is already under process and I do not want to interfere in the same. (21) Mr. These all are questions of facts which will depend upon factual enquiry which is already under process and I do not want to interfere in the same. (21) Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the Revenue made an endeavour to show that certain transactions have been made to the tune of crores of rupees within a short span of 6 months and he wanted me to infer that these are all sham transactions and a fraud has been committed by the assessee. These all are questions of facts which I need not to examine at this stage as the investigation thereof is already in progress before the assessing authority and it is for the assessing authority to assess whether the transactions were bona fide or otherwise. (22) Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that in one of the cases namely in the case of M/s. Shyam Oil Cake vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (1) the assessment was made and the appellate authority has set aside the order and found that the sale has taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and has remanded the matter back to the assessing authority. He has also submitted that the authorities are not summoning the record of their check-posts through which the goods have passed to other States and the authority has not given proper opportunity to the petitioner to produce the evidence. These all are questions of facts and it is expected that the prescribed authority shall see that all the record which is relevant to the case should be summoned or the parties may be given full opportunity to produce the same. After all the purpose of the enquiry is that both the parties would get a fair opportunity to meet their cases and the quasi-judicial authorities are not immune from following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is directed that the authorities shall fairly deal with the matters and summon all the record which is relevant and requisitioned by the petitioners and the petitioners should be given full opportunity to produce all the relevant record before the authorities to justify their bona fides. The persistent effort of Mr. Therefore, it is directed that the authorities shall fairly deal with the matters and summon all the record which is relevant and requisitioned by the petitioners and the petitioners should be given full opportunity to produce all the relevant record before the authorities to justify their bona fides. The persistent effort of Mr. Mehta to make some observations in these cases regarding the fraud and cheating committed by the petitioners, in this connection, I think, it is not proper for this Court at this stage to make such observations. It is proper for the authorities that if they find that the petitioner-assessee has played a fraud and produced fraudulent documents to evade tax liability then it is always open for them to prosecute them in accordance with law. It is not proper for me to infer anything at this stage as I am not deciding the questions of facts involved in the present case because the enquiry is already in progress before the prescribed authority and the prescribed authority has to give its finding as to whether the petitioner is guilty in preparing the forged documents in order to evade tax liability. I leave it for the authorities if they find that there is a definite evidence to connect the petitioner with the fraud and/or collusion it will be open for them to launch criminal proceedings against the defaulting parties in accordance with law. (23) In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the other writ petitions mentioned in Schedule "A" appended to this order and the same are dismissed.