2008 (8) TMI 808

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... licensee of Indian-made foreign spirits (IMFS). The undisputed facts are that an inspection of the business premises of the assessee was carried out on August 23, 1997. The account books of the assessee were seized along with the excise record for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Physical stock verification was also carried out. All liquor which is imported into the State of Himachal Pradesh from outside is required to be entered at the excise barrier. It is not disputed that the assessee was importing liquor through Mehatpur where a multi-purpose barrier is situated. On going through the records of the multi-purpose barrier the assessing officer found that the assessee had been using the same permit for importing liquor many times on the b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... self had claimed that it had not received the first consignment. To this the assessee had no answer. Therefore, the assessing officer worked out the tax liability of the assesseefirm on the basis of the sale value of liquor imported into Himachal Pradesh through all the four consignments mentioned hereinabove. Penalty, etc., was also levied. In fact the partner of the assessee appearing before the assessing officer prayed for leniency on the ground that his partner may have played mischief in connivance with the Distilleries in Madhya Pradesh. Accordingly, tax of Rs. 2,01,000 and penalty of Rs. 55,000, i.e., total liability of Rs. 2,56,000 was fixed on the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal but did not appear before the appellate auth .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ter shifted upon the assessee to show that the liquor had not been sold or that it was still lying with it. No explanation has been given by the assessee as to where the liquor smuggled by it into Himachal Pradesh has gone. Therefore, the department was right in holding that the liquor has been sold and the assessee was liable to pay sales tax on the same.   The reasoning of the learned Tribunal is totally baseless. In a case of illegal activity where the liquor has been smuggled the assessee is not going to keep any records of the same. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that without proving the sales, the sales tax could not have been levied. No law can be construed or interpreted in a manner which would give a premium or fill .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X