CHIRAG AGENCY, HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT AKHARAGHAT ROAD, POLICE STATION Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee has preferred this appeal under Sec. 79 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and is aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.9.2008, passed by the learned Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No. MZ-377 of 2006 (M/s Chirag Agency Vs. The State of Bihar) , whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders of the two authorities below. The Appellant has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration in the present appeal:-

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The assessee (the Appellant) is a whole-sale dealer in fertilizer supplied by M/s Oswal Chemical and Fertilizer Limited. On 26.7.2005, the authorities under the Act had conducted a search and seizure in the premises of the assessee under the provisions of Chapter-Vlll of the Act. The authorities noticed that four sales of the goods made by M/s Oswal Fertilizer Chemical Ltd. to the Appellant between 14.7.2005 to 25.7.2005 had not been entered in the stock register and the connected documents. This led to initiation of proceedings under Sec. 32 of the Act, which is headed "Escaped turnover detected before or at the time of assessment of tax". Show-cause notice dated 28.7.2005 was issued to the assessee in terms of Sec. 32 of the Act. On a detailed consideration of the materials on record, the Commercial Tax Officer, being the learned assessing officer, rejected the cause shown by the assessee and treated the four sales in question to be escaped turn-over and imposed a penalty of Rs. 70,578.72P on the assessee. Aggrieved by the order the assessee preferred appeal before the learned Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), which was rejected by the order dated 18.7.2006. The assessee's appeal before the Tribunal has also been rejected by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal at the instance of the assessee.

(3.) We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned for the parties. It appears that the show-cause notice had called upon the assessee to explain as to why the four sales by M/s Oswal Chemical and Fertilizer Ltd. to the assessee between 14.7.2005 to 25.7.2005, have not been entered in the stock register and the connected register/documents. The assessee had shown cause. The learned assessing officer has rejected this explanation and found that the same has purposely not been entered in the stock register to evade the liability under the Act. This has been concurrently found by all the three quasi-judicial authorities including the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has found as follows:-