9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... une of Rs. 3,05,230/- is hereby confirmed. However, for the reasons stated above in the body of this order, the penalty of Rs. 4,57,845/- levied u/s. 34(7) as well as additional interest charged u/s.42(6) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 3,38,803/- as against Rs. 4772/- charged by the assessing officer are hereby deleted." 2. The central issue in this litigation consists, disallowance of input tax credit to the petitioner on purchases made from one M/s. Om Incorporation whose registration certificate was cancelled with retrospective effect from 01.01.2007. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the same day that the Tribunal has decided several revision petitions on the same ground or on the same line. One such dealer h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the transactions are not genuine and that the petitioner has acted in collusion with M/s. Om Incorporation for evasion of tax. In the opinion of this court, there was no justification for the Tribunal to record such findings of fact which were not based upon material forming part of the record of the order of the subordinate authority, but upon material produced by the respondent directly before the Tribunal. 16. Another aspect of the matter is that before the Tribunal, all aspects with regard to the scope of the revisional proceedings etc. had been canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioner. It was categorically stated by the petitioner that there was no dispute at all with regard to genuineness of purchase transactions and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the Tribunal is duty bound to deal with the same and record a finding in respect thereof. 18. In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the view that the very initiation of the revisional proceedings was itself without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the same was based upon material extraneous to the record of order of the officer appointed under section 16 of the Act to assist the Commissioner. Moreover, even on merits, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 15th July, 2015 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
