9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 169 of 2007 and 157 of 2007 are filed against the common order dated 05.12.2016 passed by Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench Noida in Second Appeal No.324 of 2006 (for the assessment year 2003-04) and in Second Appeal No.322 of 2006 (for the assessment year 2002-03) respectively under the Central Sales Tax Act. The revisionist is a proprietorship concern and is engaged in manufacturing and sale of Electrical Stamping and Sheet Metal Components. The revisionist is a registered dealer under Uttar Pradesh as well as Central Sales Tax Act. A survey was conducted at the business premises of the revisionist on 09.02.2004 by the S.I.B. unit of the Trade Tax Department. The statement of accountant of the firm was recorded and certain documents were seized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 10.11.2005. Aggrieved by the orders dated 10.11.2005, again appeals were filed before the First Appellate Authority which too were rejected vide common order dated 27.03.2006 and order of assessing authority was upheld. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2006, second appeals are filed before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Noida. The appeals were registered as Second Appeal No.322 of 2006 and Second Appeal No. 324 of 2006 under the Central Sales Tax Act. Before the Tribunal, the assessee has contended that the orders passed by the assessing authority and first appellate authority are wholly illegal as they have illegally rejected the claim of the stock transfer. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " The assessing authority arrived at the conclusion that sales were affected by the revisionist to the purchaser who have approached the revisionist for delivery of goods and thereafter the goods were dispatched by the revisionist through its Delhi branch and were delivered to the specific known purchasers. The Tribunal has examined the claim of the revisionist as well as the departmental representative. The Tribunal has categorically recorded the findings of fact that while issuing Form 'F' there was neither the number of vehicle nor the details of the transport company wwere mentioned. According to the tribunal transaction in question was not supported with the provision of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act. Learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
