9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling the revision petition. The reason for delay, mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, is that the petitioner filed application for rectification and in the process of decision on the said application, the period of limitation expired. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we condoned the delay and heard the matter on the merits. The substantial questions of law claimed by the petitioner are: "(i) Whether the learned Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order of learned AETC passed on September 25, 2006 when the said order was passed without complying with the earlier two orders passed by the Tribunal itself, whereby specific directions were given to the authority to act in a particular manner and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal twice, i.e., on October 12, 1999 and July 19, 2005, for verifying genuineness of the sales, the said purchasing dealers were not produced for cross-examination, though the petitioner sought such an opportunity. The finding recorded to the effect that the sales were not genuine was in violation of the principles of natural justice. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner sought to summon the record of the purchasing dealers and also sought opportunity to cross-examine the said dealers, the revisional authority, i.e., the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Faridkot, did not allow this opportunity. The argument of the petitioner to this effect ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicant were never issued by the Department to the purchasing dealers. Obviously, the forms were not from genuine source. These declaration forms were issued by the Department to the dealers of other districts, i.e., Amritsar-I, Ludhiana-I, Jalandhar-I and Faridkot and not to district Sangrur in which the business premises of the purchasing dealer fall. At the same time, the dealer of Dhuri to whom sales are shown also denied having made purchases from the applicant. Inquiries were also made from the dealer of Amritsar-I, Jalandhar-I, Ludhiana-I and Faridkot, who were actually issued the said Government printed ST-XXII forms by the Department. They denied having made purchases from the applicant. All these facts were confronted to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished by the purchasing dealers were not genuine was vitiated by denial of opportunity. In the circumstances, mere denial by the said purchasing dealers was self-serving and could not be held against the petitioner. If declaration furnished by the purchasers was found to be defective, the said dealers would be liable to pay the tax. The learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to show either that the concerned dealers, who were sought to be summoned, were produced or that there was no requirement in law to do so. In such situation, the finding to the effect that the petitioner failed to discharge burden of sales being genuine, cannot be sustained in law. The questions of law have to be answered in favour of the petitioner-dealer and agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
