9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.49 of 2019 has been affirmed and by which the order dated 21.12.2018 passed under Section 28(2)(II) Vat Act, 2008 has been modified after allowing the appeal in part. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that on 15.09.2016 a survey was conducted by Special Investigation Bureau (SIB)on the premises of the revisionist. Merely on the basis, that at that time of the said inspection, the books of account were not found, the SIB Officers made an assessment on the basis of best judgment and raised a tax demand of Rs. 2,36,934.00. The revisionist assailed the aforesaid tax demand by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeals) First Trade Tax Faizabad. The First Appellate Authority after hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Chawlas Bricks Fields Allahabad Vs. Commissioner Sales Tax U.P. Lucknow reported in 2005 HC page 325. The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionist and also perused the record. As far as the facts are concerned, it is not in dispute that as on 15.09.2016 a survey was conducted at the premises of the revisionist. At the time of making the aforesaid survey, admittedly the books of account were not present. However, what is significant to note is that at the time of making the survey, the SIB Officer found that one vehicle bearing number UP 53 BT-6672 was being loads with oil cake and it was also found that in so far as this activity is concerned, there was no disclosure by the revisionist in his bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of books of account has not been taken as a ground rather it was something which was seen and found at the time of survey, that is loading of oil cake in vehicle and the same did not match with the account books upon which the assessment has been made. Therefore, the aforesaid decision does not come to the rescue of the revisionist. As far as the other submission is concerned, the revisionist was not provided with the copy of SIB report. It will be relevant to mention that the same also does not merit consideration for the reason that this plea was neither raised by the revisionist at any point of time before the authorities nor before the appellate court below, accordingly this plea is being raised for the first time which does not cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
