Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 913 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of tax, interest and penalty - Whether, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified, in upholding the findings of reassessment officer which proceeds merely on the allegations of show-cause notice dated October 22, 2010 issued by the Directorate-General of Central Excise, without any independent investigation - Held that:- Reassessing officer has found that the sales were shown in the books of 160 Chhakdo rickshaws and it was found that actually the appellant had cleared 326 Chhakdo rickshaws. Thus, 166 Chhakdo rickshaws were in excess, which were not accounted for in the sales of the appellant and hence, reassessing authority passed an order with respect to the said 166 Chhakdo rickshaws. It was the case on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was doing the job-work and assembling the rickshaws from the spare parts purchased by the prospective customers and he also produced some documents in support of his contention that he was doing the job-work of assembling the rickshaws. However, no other supporting documents/bills of engine or chassis in the name of third parties/prospective customers were placed on record. The appellant produced the contracts with (1) Maldebhai Masribhai Chavda, (2) Sadurbhai Kalubhai Manek, (3) Sureshbhai Madhavdas Danidharia in support of his case that they entered into contract with the appellant for assembling the rickshaw, however, the appellant did not produce the bill of engine or chassis in the name of the aforesaid persons. He did not produce any other documentary evidences in support of his case that the spare parts, engine, chassis, etc., were purchased by the prospective customers and that the appellant was doing the job-work. In absence of any supporting documents/documentary evidences, the reassessing officer as well as the Tribunal, both have rightly disbelieved the case on behalf of the appellant that he was doing the job-work and assembling the rickshaw from the spare parts purchased by the prospective customers. It is also required to be noted at this stage that even the registration of the rickshaws were by the appellant himself. It cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error in confirming the reassessment order. The finding of fact given by all the authorities below are on appreciation of evidence which are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. Under the circumstances, as such no question of law much less substantial question of law arise in the present appeal. - Decided against assessee.
|