9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'CST Act of 1956'). There is also a challenge to the reassessment order at Annexure-O under Section 9(2) of the CST Act of 1956 read with Section 36(1) of the said Act of 2003. 2. According to the case of the petitioner made out before the learned Single Judge, he had not transacted any business for the relevant period and in fact, by misusing his password, the Chartered Accountant appointed by him had conducted the business. 3. As far as Annexure-N to the writ petition is concerned, the reassessment is for the tax period April 2013 to March 2014. Annexure-N records a finding that an ex parte proposition notice dated 23rd January 2019 was issued proposing to disallow the input tax claimed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng offences under Sections 416, 416, 418, 420, 463, 465, 468, 503 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the Intelligence Report at Annexure-C to the writ petition. It is apparent from the first page of the said report that the Intelligence Report relates to the years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Secondly, the Intelligence Report is not an adjudication. The Intelligence Report is submitted by exercising the powers under Section 52 of the said Act of 2003 after directing production of the documents and after inspection of the documents. Section 52 of the said Act of 2003 does not contemplate any adjudication. Apart from the fact that the Intelligence Report relates to different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner available on EFS data, cannot be ignored. In view of the inter se dispute between the assessee and the tax consultant or merely on the complaint made by the department against the tax consultant, the Revenue should not suffer. Hence, the assessments concluded by the prescribed authority - respondent No.2 subjecting the petitioner to tax liability cannot be faulted with." (underline supplied) 7. We concur with the said view taken. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that there is no final adjudication made on the issue whether the allegation made against the tax consultant is correct. Admittedly, the dispute is between the appellant and the tax consultant. Hence, we find no error in the view taken by the learned Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
