TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal - Decided in favour of assessee. - Trade Tax Revision No. - 198 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 25-9-2014 - Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,JJ. For the Applicant : Pradeep Agrawal For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER The revisionist is aggrieved by the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal dated 12.9.2013. Briefly stated that the facts of the case are that the revisionist is a registered dealer having a TIN No. 09552300340 and he is carrying on his business from Village Semara, Chinhat, Lucknow. During the year 2008-09 the Firm made certain purchases of raw materiel namely, timber from registered dealers including one M/s Heena Timbers, Bahraich having TIN No. 09555700834. For these purchases tax invoices, 9R's as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion the grievance of the revisionist is that the Tax Invoices showing payment of tax by M/s Heena Timbers was issued to the revisionist-Firm alongwith Mandi Samiti gate passes and there was no reason for the Revisionist Firm to disbelieve the said documents or to believe that M/s Heena had evaded payment of tax. If in the assessment proceedings against M/s Heena Timber it came to light before the Taxing Authorities that M/s Heena Timber was guilty of evasion of tax, the said liability could not have been fastened upon the revisionist-Firm and if at all any tax allegedly evaded was required to be recovered the same should have been recovered from M/s Heena Timbers in proceedings to that effect. Learned counsel for the revisionist further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty against the revisionist under section 54(1)(19) of the U.P. VAT Act. Shri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Waterflow Industries Gaur Kender Mathura Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow 2010 NTN (Vol.44) -324 wherein the claim of the Revenue that since the assessee had claimed benefit of set off the burden lies upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the invoices has been rejected by the Court. In the present case also there is no finding recorded by the Tribunal that the Tax invoices for claiming benefit of input tax credit was not genuine and in the absence of such an exercise no liability to tax or penalty could have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
