Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 279 (GAU)

Assam Trading Company v. State of Assam and Ors.

2015-03-09

K.SREEDHAR RAO, P.K.SAIKIA

body2015
Heard the petitioner and the respondents. 2. The petitioner is conducting inter-state trade in goods(jute) -- from Assam across West Bengal. The transaction of the petitioner was for the year 2005-06. The assessment order was passed in the year 2007. In the year 2008 a notice had been issued under section 40 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for reassessment on the ground that there has been an escape of assessment on the basis of the contents of form 65A submitted by the petitioner at the check-post in West Bengal. The quantity of goods shown in form 65A was found to be higher than the one shown in the return, which was assessed in the year 2007. In view of the new-found material a demand notice had been issued, aggrieved by which this appeal was filed by the petitioner. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court in Sikaria Sons and Company and another v. Superintendent of Taxes, Gauhati, and others reported in 31 STC 25 dealt with the provisions of section 19A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 is in paramateria with section 40 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 4. In para 12 of the above cited case this Court made the following observation. “Under section 19-A, the information on which the officer is satisfied that any turnover chargeable to tax has escaped assessment must be information which he receives subsequent to the assessment order in order to confer upon him the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under that section. Mere escaping of assessment is not enough, but the Superintendent is to be satisfied that there is escape of assessment based upon information which he has come by subsequent to the assessment order”. 5. The counsel for the petitioner relying on the above observation submitted that merely because there is an allegation of escape of assessment the reassessment cannot be done unless the authority is satisfied that there is escape of assessment based on information which is subsequent to the assessment order. 6. The 65A form is a statutory printed paper which every trader doing inter-state trade has to produce at the check-post disclosing the nature, quantity and value of the goods. 7. 6. The 65A form is a statutory printed paper which every trader doing inter-state trade has to produce at the check-post disclosing the nature, quantity and value of the goods. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submits that under Rule 41(9)(iii) of the Assam Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 the owner of the goods has to produce at the check-post the valid tax clearance certificate in form 63, invoice, consignment-note, and manifesto of the transporter for passage of the goods in the inter-state trade. Therefore there has been no default on the part of the petitioner which enables the authorities to invoke the powers of reassessment under section 40 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 8. After going through the submissions made at the bar and hearing the counsel for the department we find that the subsequent material, a declaration furnished by the petitioner itself under the statutory form 65A, disclose that the quantity and value of the goods were more than what were furnished in the return. Therefore there does not appear to be any reason to hold that the reassessment order is not based on the valid material which is found subsequent to the assessment. That apart the order is an appelable order. The petitioner has taken a shortcut method to file the writ petition bypassing the provisions of appeal and other remedies before invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A false return has been filed on the basis of the contents of statutory form 65A which the department found subsequent to the assessment from the check-post in West Bengal. This clearly shows that the petitioner has with a dishonest intention filed false return to cause loss to the state revenue. If so, it amounts to commission of offence punishable under section 415, read with section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. The authorities should not remain complacent by invoking right of reassessment; they should also effectively prosecute the person who files a false return by filing a complaint, seek condonation of delay under section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code if necessary to sternly deal with such cases of false and dishonest returns. Such an effective action by the department would deter the people from filing false returns. In that view of the matter the petition is dismissed.