TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Transport of goods. It is rather surprising as to how the respondent would have passed such an order, when she has recorded that transport documents were produced for verification. Thus, it is evidently clear that it is a case of total non application of mind on the part of the respondent. That apart, the impugned assessment order has been passed on the same day, when the petitioner submitted his objections dated 15.06.2016. This itself would indicate that the respondent had pre-judged the issue and the action in calling for objection is reduced to an empty formality. Hence, the notice dated 27.05.2016 as well as the impugned assessment order dated 15.06.2016 are held to be bad in law. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent stated that the petitioner has availed input tax credit for the purchases effected from M/s.A.K.Traders but the selling dealer have not reported the sales and paid tax. Therefore, the petitioner was informed that though the petitioner produced purchases invoices, in the absence of proof for inward movement of goods, the respondent concluded that the purchases effected from those two dealers viz., M/s.Grown Marketing and M/s.A.K.Traders are bogus. Therefore, it was alleged that the petitioner has committed an offence by conspiring with the selling dealers who are bill traders leading to cheating the Government and causing loss of revenue. Further, the respondent concluded that the purchases are bogus and the input tax credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity and filed monthly returns and all input tax credit are claimed through proper VAT invoices issued by the registered VAT dealers and all payments towards such invoices were genuinely made for actual business transactions held through bank channel and it is evident that the two dealers are gross defaulters in the case and the liability falls on them. Further, the petitioner requested one month time as they are in the process of tracing M/s.Grown Marketing, who have absconded subsequent to the notice issued by the Sales Tax Department. With the above objections and evidences, the petitioner requested to drop the charges listed against them in the notice dated 27.05.2016. 3. The respondent, after receipt of the reply, has completed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances, they could have issued notices to M/s.Thejo Engineering, M/s.T V S Sri Chakara Limited and M/s.Grown Marketing and gathered details from the respective dealers or from their Assessing Officers and after due enquiry, the assessment could have been completed. However, this procedure which ought to have been followed, has not been adhered to, it has to be termed untenable. That apart, as pointed out earlier, even in the notice dated 27.05.2016, the respondent has pre-decided the matter in as much as there is a direction to the petitioner to pay ₹ 68,93,000/- along with interest. Thus, the notice dated 27.05.2016 itself is defective as the opportunity granted to the petitioner to file objections is an empty formality. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
