9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been sold within the State of U.P. The assessing officer on this finding imposed tax liability on the owner of the vehicle as also 10 times penalty as provided under section 15A(1)(q) of the Act for violation of the provisions of section 28B of the Act. On appeal the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the material on record as adduced by the dealer came to the conclusion that the goods in fact had been transported outside the State of U.P., and therefore, there was no question of assessment of tax or penalty. It further recorded that the dealer had filed the dispatch and the trip sheet from the exit checkpost and also sufficient evidence of the purchasing dealer situate outside the State of U.P., who was stated to have received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , was not established. These written arguments as also the report of the Economic Offences Wing was relied upon by the Tribunal while reversing the judgment of the appellate authority and restoring that of the assessing officer. According to the learned counsel for the applicant the said report was not supplied to the applicant nor he was afforded any opportunity to rebut the same. In the circumstances, the applicant had no opportunity to defend himself and to meet out the report of the Economic Offences Wing. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the order of the Tribunal is justified inasmuch as the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) had knocked off the tax liability and penalty placing reliance upon certain material filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assistant Commissioner (in-charge), Sahayata Kendra Drumondganj, Mirzapur dated May 30, 2007. The judgment of the Tribunal is dated May 31, 2007. Thus, it appears that the report was placed before the Tribunal only a day before the passing of the judgment or may be it was placed on the date of the judgment itself. The order of the Tribunal does not mention at any place that the dealer was confronted with such material or that he was given any opportunity to rebut the same. Further the Tribunal has placed reliance upon the report of the Economic Offences Wing and based on the same it set aside the finding recorded by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the evidence led by the dealer before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) was not w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
