TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alization could be attributed to the tax charged from the customers. - dealer had not charged anything extra on sale of IMFL after the levy of tax thereon. Thus, on appreciation of evidence, it could not be concluded that the dealer had charged any tax from the customers. The finding recorded by the majority Members of the Tribunal is based on conjectures and surmises without there being any material on record to arrive at the conclusion that the assessee-appellant had charged tax on sale of IMFL in respect of stock as on 25.6.2001, which was sold during the period 26.6.2001 to 14.10.2001. Moreover, no cogent reasons have been given therein to record a finding different from the one noticed - The finding recorded by the Tribunal is thus, le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of Ld. Revisional Authority wherein he has raised the demand on account of undue enrichment despite the fact that the appellant did not charge any tax from its customers in the invoices? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of Ld. Revisional Authority even though he had no jurisdiction after the repeal of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973? 3. Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein are that the appellant was engaged in the business of wholesale and retail purchases and sale of the Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 76,36,377/-. Since the refund amount exceeded ₹ 10 lacs, the case was sent to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner for approval. After his approval, the amount was refunded to the appellant. However, after the expiry of more than four years, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Faridabad (East) issued a notice to the appellant to show cause as to why the assessment order be not revised and the refund made to the appellant be not recovered. The said show cause notice was duly replied by the appellant. The revisional authority vide order dated 1.5.2007 (Annexure A-2) revised the order by raising demand of ₹ 84,77,746/-. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal (Annexure A-3) before the Tribunal. A Division Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d urged that it could not be said that the appellant had sold the liquor without charging the tax on the stock of IMFL on 25.6.2001 and, thus, the Tribunal was right in deciding the issue against the appellant. 6. The issue which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there was unjust enrichment on the part of the appellant whereby it could be said that the appellant had collected the tax on sale of closing stock of liquor which was available on 25.6.2001 but was sold subsequently till 14.10.2001. 7. We find force in submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. The IMFL was tax free before 26.6.2001 and if the dealer had realized the same price for the sale of IMFL immediately before and after 26.6.2001, then it cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FL sold to Gymkhana Club L- 12C, Faridabad, were examined by the Tribunal as has been noticed in the opinion of Sh. Yudhvir Singh, Member of the Tribunal. On 21.6.2001, only Peter Scot Whisky and Sandipiper Beer had been sold whose comparison of sale price and comparable brands when sold on subsequent dates was as under:- Brand IMFL Date Gross Price per case Rebate Peter Scot Whisky 21.6.2001 4800 20% 11.8.2001 4800 20% 12.9.2001 4800 20% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how it would amount to undue enrichment when the dealer- respondent has not collected tax from the third party. There has not been any satisfactory explanation. The Assessing Officer as well as the appellate authority are presumed to have gone through the books of account and the entry of ₹ 48.50 must have been duly reflected. There is no whisper in the grounds of appeal alleging anything to the contrary which lead to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are pure findings of fact which would not give rise to a substantive question of law. Therefore, the appeal does not warrant admission. 11. The Tribunal had relied upon decision of this Court in M/s Jatinder Singh Co. s case (supra) to adjudicate the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
