TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner. Thus, no substantial question of law arises - Decided against assessee. - VATAPNo. 116 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 14-7-2014 - AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND JASPAL SINGH JJ. Rajiv Agnihotri for the appellant. JUDGEMENT This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, the Act ) against the orders dated August 31, 1994, June 30, 2003 and July 8, 2013, annexures A4, A5 and A10, respectively in STR No. 41 of 2007-08 for the assessment year 1988-89, claiming following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the different notices issued showing different basis for initiation of proceedings under section 31 are not illegal, as proceedings under section 31 can be iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Aggarwal Iron Store v. State of Punjab[2010] 35 VST 200 (P and H):[2009] 34 PHT 159 that no best judgment assessment can be framed if the terms of notice are complied with? (viii) Whether the penalty imposed under section 48 of the Act for suppression is not illegal? (ix) Whether penalty can be levied on assumed turnover in best judgment assessment or it is leviable on 'definite information' on 'turnover' allegedly not disclosed? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant is a proprietorship concern. It is engaged in the trading of iron and steels goods which were being purchased from M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited, Faridaba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d requested for cross-examination of the transporters and documents in possession of the assessing authority. No opportunity was provided to the assessee. Vide order dated August 31, 1994, annexure A4, assessment order was passed. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad (JETC (A)). Vide order dated June 30, 2003, annexure A5, the JETC(A), rejected the appeal of the appellant. Still not satisfied, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal on August 28, 2003. Vide order dated January 3, 2007, annexure A8, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The appellant filed review application dated July 5, 2007 which was also dismissed vide order dated July 8, 2013, annexur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show-cause notice. As per the documents impounded, the same bill numbers have been issued in the name of local dealers whereas as per barrier's record from the same bill these have been dispatched to Delhi. The details have been enumerated in the impugned order in detail by the first appellate authority. Hence the argument given by the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessing authority was not in possession of definite information is not substantiated by the facts on record. It is also a fact as borne out from the record that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on October 4, 1993 and on one occasion Shri D.B. Garg, advocate appeared without the books of accounts, he was confronted with the information in possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State of Punjab[1981] 48 STC 369 (P and H) and Jai Ram Hans Raj v. State of Haryana[1973] 32 STC 107 (P and H) are not applicable in the present case because the assessment is not based on mere suspicions but on the facts as collected from the extraneous sources. In fact, it is a case which is based on the definite information and facts and different points of law decided in different circumstances will not automatically be applicable in this case. The order of the Assessing Authority is detailed one and he has given the date, commodity, quantity, truck no, bill no. and amount involved in these transactions. It is very clear from these details that the appellant has been indulging in the activities of evasion of tax and he has nothing much ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
