Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:        

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (4) TMI 920

notes to the consignor for the same consignment on the same date which were not found to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Also the Driver failed to produce Excise Gate Pass in movement of the said goods from the factory and relevant form of the Commercial Tax Department of Uttar Pradesh despite grant of sufficient time and opportunities.

Held that:- we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Commissioner of Taxes. The findings of Commissioner are well founded and unassailable. The petitioner could not point out any illegality in the impugned order. No ground for interference is made out. - Decided against the petitioner - WP (C) 3089/2009 - Dated:- 10-3-2016 - Mr. Ajit Singh And Hrishikesh .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

eleased on payment of tax. They further submitted that additional papers were left by the Driver due to oversight which were collected later and were being filed with the reply. On 10.3.2009, the petitioner filed a separate reply to the show cause notice on similar line. 5. The Superintendent of Taxes did not agree with the explanation of the petitioner and vide order dated 10.3.2009 passed the assessment order stating therein that the consignee had issued two delivery notes to the consigner for the same consignment on the same date which were not found to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Superintendent of Taxes also held that even the Driver failed to produce Excise Gate Pass in movement of the said goods from the facto .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

1 in the case record. The Annexure-2 is not on official stationery and it signed by some authority other than ARTO. From the seal, it appears that the authority does not even belong to transport department of State of Uttar Pradesh. Further, in the Annexure-2 along with the revision petition which is a photocopy, the sign and seal appear on the right hand side and in the original submitted on 3.7.2009 the sign and seal appear on the left hand side. Hence Annexure-2 does not appear to be a genuine document. In view of the above it is not possible to reply upon Annexure-2 in support of the petitioner s contention that the additional documents were written by ARTO, Uttar Pradesh. There appears to be an attempt to mislead the revisional authori .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||

 
  • Advanced Search
  • Discussion Forum
  • What is New
  • Recent Case Laws
  • Latest Notifications
  • Calendar
  • Experts - Forum
  • Experts - Articles
  • Compute Income Tax
  • Online - Tax / Returns
  • Some Useful Sites
  • Refer to a Friend
  • Contact Us
  • Feedback
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms and Conditions