STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SARDAR METAL STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of a sales tax reference made by the sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, whereby the following question of law has been referred to this Court for its opinion under section 42 (1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter called "the Act") :

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the aforesaid question may first be noticed. One M/s. Manchanda Metal Works, Jagadhari filed a complaint with the Assessing Authority to the effect that it had been delivered a consignment of goods against receipt No. 10002 dated June 28, 1975 in which M/s. Vijay Metal Works, Delhi had been mentioned as consignor and the complainant as consignee. M/s. Sardar Metal Store, Jagadhari the respondent herein (for short, "the assessee") claimed those goods stating that on account of negligence of the transporters those had been wrongly delivered to the complainant. The assessee requested the Assessing Authority to release the goods. Thereupon the Assessing Authority directed the assessee to produce its account books for the year 1975-76 for verification whether or not the payment of Rs. 25,000 shown in the bill to have been made by the consignee by way of advance had been accounted for by the respondent in its books. The assessee was unable to show from his books any entry regarding the advance payment of Rs. 25,000. It had also been alleged that market value of the goods was Rs. 75,000 and not Rs. 40,000 as shown in the bill. After hearing the parties the Assessing Authority held that the goods belonged to the assessee and by purchasing them under a false name the assessee had suppressed the purchases by not entering the advance payment of Rs. 25,000 in its account books. The Assessing Authority also found that the assessee had maintained false and incorrect accounts with a view to suppress its purchases. The Assessing Authority as per order dated August 19, 1975 imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under section 48 of the Act.

(3.) SINCE the answer to the question referred to us depends upon the interpretation of section 48 of the Act as it stood at the relevant time the same is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference :