Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (3) TMI 1016

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... therefore, the assessee cannot possibly be heard to say that no opportunity was granted to it. The authorities below have recorded a categoric finding of fact that as the declaration made by the assessee based on bogus and ingenuine forms, therefore, determination of any substantial question of law did not arise at all, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. For the reasons recorded above, we, therefore, find no merit in the instant appeal, which is hereby dismissed. - 12 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2010 - ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , JJ. ORDER:- The petitioner-assessee, Bhaskar Ceramics (P) Ltd. (for brevity the assessee ) was a dealer registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nstead of contesting the matter on the merits, the assessee sought one opportunity for leading evidence against the material collected by the Department, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for the Revenue. Consequently, the case was again remanded back to the Assessing Authority for providing one more opportunity for producing evidence, vide order dated January 18, 2005 (annexure P7). Having received the order (annexure P7), the revisional authority again provided adequate opportunities to the assessee to prove the genuineness of the declaration, but it (assessee) sought adjournments time and again. The revisional authority reiterated its earlier order and re-confirmed the demand of tax, vide third order dated September 25, 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pportunity to it (assessee) to prove its case. But again, the assessee sought adjournment of the case and the revisional authority again confirmed the demand of tax and imposition of penalty, vide order (annexure P7). The assessee again filed the appeal, which was partly accepted by the Tribunal, vide order (annexure P10). Meaning thereby, the assessee first sought the remand of the case from the Tribunal to enable it to prove the genuineness of the indicated declaration, but it (assessee) repeatedly did not appear before the revisional authority and considerably delayed the matter, for the reasons best known to it. The main argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that no adequate opportunity was provided to it to prove its d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was then asked to produce the purchasing dealers and also to produce them of his own. The dealer took the stand that it was the responsibility of the Department to produce the concerned persons for the purposes of crossexamination. The plea of the dealer was declined by the Assessing Authority after holding that it was not at all necessary to give an opportunity to the dealer of cross-examining the purchasing dealers. The findings recorded by the Assessing Authority were upheld by the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. The Tribunal refused to refer questions holding they were not of law. On the peculiar facts and in the circumstances of that case, the Tribunal was directed to refer the questions of law to the High Court. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sales Tax Rules, 1949, is prima facie proof that the sales have been made to the registered dealers . But at the same time, it was held that the Sales Tax Authorities can refuse to allow the deduction if there is evidence that the sales are not genuine . Possibly, no one can dispute about the aforesaid observations, but the same would not come to the rescue of the assessee in the instant case. Rather, the above underlined(1) observation supports the case of the Revenue in this regard. It is not a matter of dispute that in the wake of scrutiny and audit objection, in the original assessment order dated September 16, 1996 (annexure P1), it was found that the declaration of Rs. 49,33,358 made by the assessee was not genuine and initial .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates