9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not accepted by Assessing Authority and he proceeded to make best judgment assessment vide order dated 19.03.2002 determining Rs. 71,07,413.55 tax under the State tax statute and Rs. 29,500/- under Central Act. Thereagainst the Dealer's First Appeals No. 406/2 and 407/2 were dismissed by First Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.06.2002 but the Second Appeals No. 295/02 and 294/02 were allowed vide judgment dated 04/13.07.2004 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Aligarh Bench, Aligarh and the matter was remanded to Assessing Authority for redetermination of tax liability. The Assessing Authority passed order on 21.07.2005 on the basis of best judgment assessment and, thereagainst revisionist's First Appeals No. 633/2005 and 634/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dan Lal, Proprietor, M/s K.S. Traders, Babu Market, Atta Chowk, Noida was returned with endorsement that he has also left premises. Further the aforesaid firm was found registered only upto 31.03.1998 and thereafter the firm had not submitted any returns. The third firm, i.e., M/s M.M. Enterprises 43/254 Shivhare Marg, Sikandra, Agra, Proprietor, Sri Jitendra Kumar Sharma when sent notices, was returned by post office with endorsement of "wrong address" and when personal service was sought to be effected, it was informed that the firm was opened just a few days back and had now closed. The registration of said firm, thus was cancelled on 11.10.1999. The Assessing Authority did not accept claim of purchase of aforesaid items on the ground th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransactions were only on paper and fictitious for huge evasion of tax liability. 6. Sri Piyush Agrawal, Advocate however further said that Proprietor of three firms filed their affidavits in support of the purchase transactions made by revisionist-Dealer but the Tribunal found that addresses mentioned in affidavits of alleged Proprietors of these firms were not verified inasmuch as none of the deponent was found at the address given by them and, therefore, those affidavits also could not be cross checked, hence have not been believed by Tribunal. 7. It is true that one or the other fact in isolation may not justify a best judgment assessment since the jurisdiction arises only when Assessing Authority finds that the return submitted by Dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
