TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k must have utilized its name while carrying the truck load of bricks to the Girisola Check Gate and the said plea has been rejected by the concerned authorities below including the Tribunal. Moreover, the plea of the petitioner that there is no sale suppression and under invoicing which are the facts in issue, have not been accepted by the Tribunal. When there is already money receipt showing the collection of amount of ₹ 3500/- per truck load of bricks but the books of accounts show sale at ₹ 1008/- per truck load of bricks, the facts decided by the Assessing Authority, First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal have been set at rest. Such questions of fact being not question of law nor being connected with any question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am, Berhampur. On being asked he reported that some manufacturers might have utilized his name while transporting their bricks. Moreover, the assessing Authority found that the dealer petitioner has claimed to have collected ₹ 3,500/- per truck load of bricks although the books of accounts is maintained reflecting ₹ 1008/- per truck load of bricks. Therefore, the learned Assessing Authority demanded the tax of ₹ 3,33,950/-. 3. Against the above order, the petitioner preferred First Appeal before the learned Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ganjam Range, Berhampur in F.A. Case No. AA 538/2004-05 who vide order dated 24.4.2006 rejected the plea of the petitioner to the effect that some other owner of the bricks might hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which enhanced the tax from ₹ 84,834/- to ₹ 2,45,310/-. Resultantly learned Tribunal dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, in part. SUBMISSIONS : 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to violation of natural justice, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. According to him the petitioner has not got a notice of cross objection or cross-appeal as the case may be before enhancement of tax. He further submitted that there is decision of our High Court in this regard in Sri Mayur Biscuits Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Mayurbhanj Circle, Baripada and others, [2009] 20 VST 330 (Orissa), wherein Their Lordships have observed that the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also perused the decision, i.e., Sri Mayur Biscuits Co. (P) Ltd. (supra). It has been held in the aforesaid decision in the following manner : In the aforesaid view of the matter, we follow the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shyamsunder Sahoo v. State of Orissa reported in [1994] 92 STC 28. In that judgment also, the learned Judges were pleased to set aside the enhancement on the ground that no opportunity for showing cause against the proposed action for enhancement was given to the petitioner by the Tribunal. Following the ratio in the said judgment, we set aside the order of the Tribunal dated March 16, 2007 passed in S.A. No.256 of 2002-03. xx xx 8. With great respect it is found that in that ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Tribunal has either failed to decide or decided erroneously any question of law: Provided that the High Court may admit a petition preferred after the period of sixty days aforesaid if it is satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not preferring the petition within that period. 10. The aforesaid provision clearly shows that only on question of law, the revision can be considered by the Court. Any question of dispute with regard to the fact unconnected with question of law, cannot be gone into by the Court. In the instant case, there is only allegation by the petitioner that some manufacturer of brick must have utilized its name while carrying the truck load of bricks to the Girisola Check Gate and the said plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
