9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar on March 31, 2009. The learned advocate Mr. S.D. Sanjay has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is engaged in wholesale business of foodgrains, oil, etc. On March 6, 2006, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.) while inspecting the books of accounts of one M/s. Sudhir Kumar Srivastava came across certain entries worth Rs. 44,58,325 indicating payments made by the petitioner, M/s. Bhagwati Bhandar. On the basis of the said material, a notice was issued upon the petitioner under section 56(2)(a) of the 2005 Act to produce its books of accounts. On production of the books of accounts by the petitioner, the only entry of payment made worth Rs. 6,00,000 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed penalty over the petitioner. The learned advocate Mr. Piyush Lal has appeared for the respondentsauthorities. He has, at the outset, contested this petition on the ground of maintainability. He has submitted that against the order of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, an appeal should lie before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal. In view of the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner, the present petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. He has next supported the orders of the authorities below. He has submitted that several entries were found in the books of accounts of the aforesaid M/s. Sudhir Kumar Srivastava indicating various payments made by the petitioner to the vendors outs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the materials on record. The order was, thus, vitiated. The lower appellate authority and the revisional authority-the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, both have erred in confirming the order of the assessing officer and in absence of any independent material in fastening the liability upon the petitioner. In our opinion the authorities below have manifestly erred in holding the petitioner guilty of concealment and in making the impugned orders under section 32(1) of the 2005 Act. In absence of any independent material connecting the petitioner with the alleged transactions we need not remand the matter to the assessing officer to consider the matter afresh. As we have held the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
