TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t availed of by the respondent-assessee, then the petitioner-assessing officer cannot be said to be faulted with. It was for the respondent-assessee to satisfy the petitioner-assessing officer about the discrepancy, if any. If the respondent-assessee objected, then possibly, in my view, the petitioner-assessing officer was duty-bound to get the things verified from the seller but in a case like this when the representative of the respondent-assessee accepts the mistake and requests for closing the case, then according to me, nothing remained to be proved by the petitioner-assessing officer. Even before the DC (A) only some photo copies have been produced and not even the supporting books, bills and other vouchers and even the DC (A) simply mentions by deleting the penalty that merely by not mentioning bill number on the bill, it does seem the intention of the respondent-assessee of evading the tax. In my view, nonmentioning of bill number on the bill is a major defect/discrepancy which cannot be simply brushed aside. If bill number is not there, then both, i.e., the purchaser as well as seller can manipulate the things the way they want. The DC (A) was not proper in deleting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -evasion wing that there was no bill number either printed or hand written and apparently came to the conclusion that the bill appears to be forged and fabricated as even the bill number is not written on it. Accordingly, a notice was given and one Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, supervisor of the respondent-assessee appeared, gave a written reply and despite giving ample time to the supervisor/representative of the respondent-assessee to produce books of accounts and bill books, etc., he showed his inability to produce the same and it was admitted that non-mentioning of bill number on the bill is a mistake, he, however, requested for closing the case after levying the penalty and releasing the goods. Accordingly, the petitioner-assessing authority, in view of the aforesaid admission/submis-sions made by the supervisor/representative of the respondent-assessee, imposed a penalty of ₹ 66,503 upon the respondent-assessee. 3. Dissatisfied with imposition of the said penalty, the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the DC (A), who, vide order dated May 10, 2005 deleted the penalty mainly in view of the fact that before him the photostat copy of the bill books were produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the contents of the photo copies and only on this basis deleted the penalty. She submitted that it is merely mentioned by the DC (A) that by not mentioning bill number on the bill, it does show the intention of the respondent-assessee of evading the tax. She further submitted that there is no reason at all to come to such a conclusion and to delete the penalty. She further submitted that not only this, even the Tax Board was unjustified in mechanically following and affirming the order passed by the DC (A) when there was clear admission by the representative of the respondent-assessee. She further submitted that can anyone sell and purchase goods without bill number and if that be so, then sanctity would be lost of even producing the bill. She submitted that such a bill has no sanctity and was rightly held to be forged and fabricated. Accordingly, she requested for reversal of the orders impugned. 6. Mr. T. C. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, on the other hand, submitted that both, i.e., the DC (A) as well as the Tax Board have come to the correct conclusion about the fact that the sale was against C form which clearly shows that it was tax paid and there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contrary, requested that the matter may be closed. The representative of the respondent-assessee admitted the mistake, requested for imposition of penalty then and there and requested for payment of even penalty amount and requested for release of the goods. On the face of it, when there was clear cut admission by the representative of the respondent-assessee, in my view, nothing more was required to be proved by the petitioner-assessing officer. Secondly, when ample opportunity was granted by the petitioner-assessing officer to satisfy him by production of books of accounts and supporting material and if such an opportunity was not availed of by the respondent-assessee, then the petitioner-assessing officer cannot be said to be faulted with. It was for the respondent-assessee to satisfy the petitioner-assessing officer about the discrepancy, if any. If the respondent-assessee objected, then possibly, in my view, the petitioner-assessing officer was duty-bound to get the things verified from the seller but in a case like this when the representative of the respondent-assessee accepts the mistake and requests for closing the case, then according to me, nothing remained to be pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
