9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Rubber Board for pursuing the business. Though the petitioner was given such licence, it was cancelled by the Rubber Board, as per Ext.P1 dated 21/03/2003 and as a natural consequence, the petitioner had to wind up his business as such. He filed 'Nil' return in respect of April 2003. 3. While so, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 notice dated 23/12/2003 proposing penalty under Section 45A, referring to certain sales effected by the petitioner to the fourth respondent in the month of April 2003. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply on 07/01/2004 stating that, no such sales had even been effected by the petitioner. The proposal was confirmed by imposing the penalty, which was subjected to challenge by filing a revision under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aight away imposed the penalty on the basis of the extracts gathered. In view of the nature of the case, I find that the evidence are not sufficient against this applicant. Therefore, the penalty is set aside. The applicant is given a chance to cross examine the purchaser regarding the disputed purchase in the presence of the assessing authority. The applicant shall also furnish necessary evidence to substantiate their stand. The assessing authority shall also obtain copies of the records relied on from the Rubber Board, file the same and pursue further in this regard within a period of three months of this order and take further action on the basis of evidence gathered in accordance with law." 4. The case of the petitioner is that, the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration before this Court on 14/08/2007, the following interim order was passed: G.P. takes notice for R1 to 3. Urgent notice to R4. There will be interim direction to 2nd respondent to call for and verify assessment records of 4th respondent, if he is a registered dealer and file a report whether he has returned the turnover of rubber purchased from the petitioner and paid tax during the year 2003-2004. There will be stay of recovery proceedings against the petitioner for six weeks on petitioner remitting rupees two lakhs within one month. 7. Despite the lapse of nearly 5 years, no counter affidavit has been filed from the part of the respondents, nor is there any report filed by the second respondent after examining /verifying the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
