The appellant cannot evade liability by merely producing 'C' forms without ensuring their genuineness.

ORDER VIVEK RUSIA, J. : – Heard on the question of admission.

The appellant has filed this appeal under section 53(2)(b) of the M.P. VAT Act, 2002 against the order dated 24-9-2021 passed by M.P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board, Bhopal in Appeal No. A/211/CTAB/IND/17 (CST) for the period from 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2007 (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 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2007, 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 14-1-2009 by accepting ‘C’ form declaration produced by the appellant.

3. The assessment authority has reopened the aforesaid assessment in exercise of power under section 21(1) of M.P. VAT Act, 2002 on the basis of some information about the non-verification of some of the form ‘C’ by the Anti Evasion Bureau of the Department. In the re-assessment proceedings, the legal representative of appellant appeared and demanded the non-verified form ‘C’ from the department in order to take action against the dealers. After completing the re-assessment proceedings, vide order dated 12-5-2015 the assessing authority has imposed the tax of Rs. 30,90,240/- with the three times penalty RRs. 9270720/- and issued a demand notice for recovery of Rs. 1,23,60,960/-

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax. Vide order dated 23-7-2016, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Appellate Board, Indore Bench and vide common order dated 24-9-2021, the Board dismissed the appeal pertaining to the assessment year 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2007, 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2008 and 1-4-2009 to 31-3-2010, however, the appellant has filed only one appeal in respect of assessment year 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2007.

5. Learned P. M. Choudhary, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and Appellate Board, all have wrongly relied on non-verified form ‘C’ and imposed a heavy amount of tax liability as well as penalty. The appellant has bona fidly 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 about any collusion between the appellant and dealers, therefore, in absence of collusion the imposition of three times penalty is wholly unjustified, which is causing a heavy financial burden of the appellant.

6. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Gheru Lal Bal Chand vs. State of Haryana and another, (2011) 608 (P and H) in which it has been held that the genuineness of the certificate and declaration may be examined by the taxing authority, but the onus cannot be put on the assessee to establish the correctness or the truthfulness of the statements recorded therein. The authorities can examine whether the Form VAT C-4 was bogus and was procured by the dealer in collusion with the selling dea