IDEA CELLULAR LTD., vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX (TDS)

Court No. - 1 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 696 of 2014 Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Lko. Opposite Party :- S/S Grover Steel Rolling Mills Counsel for Revisionist :- S.C. With Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 697 of 2014 Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Lko. Opposite Party :- S/S Grover Steel Rolling Mills Counsel for Revisionist :- S.C. With Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 698 of 2014 Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Lko. Opposite Party :- S/S Grover Steel Rolling Mills Counsel for Revisionist :- S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J. 1. Heard Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the revisionist. 2. The aforesaid three revisions have been filed against a common order dated 8.5.2014 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench I, Ghaziabad in Second Appeal No, 384 of 2011 (2007-08) Central 01.04.2007 to 31.12.2007, Second Appeal No. 420 of 2011 (2007-08) Central 01.01.2008 to 31.03.2008 and Second Appeal No. 499 of 2011 (2008-09) Central 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. Since facts of all the aforesaid revisions are common as such all the revisions are decided by a common order. 3. The opposite party-dealer (Ms. Grover Steel Rolling Mills) is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of Iron & Steel (Sariya & T.M.T. Bar

2 etc.). During the assessment year, the opposite party dealer has made a stock transfer from its Ghaziabad factory to its branch at Delhi. On 24.9.2009, a survey was conducted by Special Investigation Branch and on the basis of some alleged discrepancies, the stock transfer made to its branch were treated to be a central sale and accordingly tax were imposed first but the same was deleted by the Tribunal in the impugned order. Hence the aforesaid revisions were filed by the revisionist. 4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the assessment order and submits that by the impugned order, the Tribunal has wrongly accepted the contention of the opposite party and try to justify the assessment orders passed by the assessing authority but neither any other argument has been made nor any material has been placed on record to show the illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. The Court has perused the record. Admittedly the applicant / opposite party is a manufacturer of Iron & Steel (Sariya & T.M.T. Bar etc. ) and its books of account has been duly audited as per the provisions of Section 44 (ab) of Income Tax Act and no discrepancy has been pointed out in the books of accounts so maintained by the applicant / opposite party as per the provisions of Central Excise Act or even by the assessing authority. The Tribunal, being the last Court of fact, have recorded findings of fact after due verification of books of accounts & material on record and has rightly came to the conclusion that the applicant had made stock transfer and not interstate sale. The grounds taken for rejection of stock transfer by the assessing authority on the alleged statement made by one Mr. Gaurav, who was available at the time of survey conducted by the Special Investigation Branch of the department. The Tribunal has recorded finding of fact in details that the statement made by the person maintaining books of accounts of the opposite party -dealer i.e. Mr. Gaurav, never stated before the Surveying Officer that he is maintaining / looking after the billing work of the manufacturing unit as well as its branch at Delhi but may mention that he is looking the work of billing at factory. Further there was no specific record to show that the goods have been moved from factory at

3 Ghaziabad, UP to its branch at Delhi under any specific order. The finding of fact has been recorded that no manufacturing is being done for any specific customer’s specification. 6. Further a finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that for stock transfer, requisite form ‘F’ has duly been furnished as per the provisions of the Act and no deficiency whatsoever has been pointed out in the said form. Moreover, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Leyland, 2004 (134) STC page 473, in the absence of any adverse material on record and no deficiency in form ‘F’, the stock transfer cannot be rejected. Since detailed findings of fact have been recorded by the appellate authority in the order passed by the Tribunal, no question arises for interference of this Court. 7. Further neither any other point has been raised nor argued by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel nor any material has been brought on record. 8. All the revisions are dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 2.11.2021 Rahul Dwivedi/-