TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order filed the application before High Court. Held that:- From the facts and material on record, it was an undeniable fact that the accounts of the assessee were fully audited. They were computerized accounts. In respect of all the sales, computerized bills were issued. The officers of the Department, who visited appellant's premises, did not notice any irregularity as such. The question of law formulated is answered in the negative in favour of the assessee. The appeal is allowed. - TAX APPEAL No. 636 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2012 - MR. V. M. SAHAI AND MR. N.V. ANJARIA JJ. M/S WADIA GHANDY CO for Appellant(s) : 1, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent(s) : 1, ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Officer under section 41 of the Act by order dated 21.02.2005. With the order, demand of Rs.19,250/- was raised by him by issuing a separate assessment order for the period from 01.04.2004 to 09.05.2004. 3.1 The Deputy Sales Tax Officer while entertaining the appeal of the assessee against the aforesaid order of Sales Officer, partly allowed the appeal and reduced the demand from Rs.19,250/- to Rs.12,300/- by his order dated 31.03.2006. 3.2 Against that order, the assessee approached the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal by way of Second Appeal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 27.11.2008 confirmed the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. Against that order dated 27.11.2008 of the Tribunal, the assessee preferred r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd, it was an undeniable fact that the accounts of the assessee were fully audited. They were computerized accounts. In respect of all the sales, computerized bills were issued. The officers of the Department, who visited appellant's premises, did not notice any irregularity as such. The additional demand was however raised on the basis of figures of sales, which according to the officers, were noticed in respect of period from 13.06.2004 to 24.06.2004. On that basis, the Dy. Sales Tax Commissioner determined the additional demand of Rs.12,300/-. 5.1 The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner with following observations: It is stated that actual taxable sales for the period of seven days (in fact between Dt.13/06/04 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
