TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the submission of the petitioner that, though the books of accounts were produced on 8.10.2014, he was directed to produce them at a later stage, but was not served with any notice thereafter. The impugned orders, passed without reference to the books of accounts and by discarding the statements of the witnesses, examined behind the petitioner's back, cannot be sustained - the first respondent is directed to reconsider the penalty orders in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P4 appellate order, providing effective opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceedings, including examination of witnesses - petition allowed by way of remand. - WP(C).No.3847 OF 2015(E) - - - Dated:- 4-6-2020 - HONOURABLE MR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... responding to the purchases accounted for. The Intelligence Officer was also directed to verify Recovery No.5 and delete the penalty relating to the purchase of cycle parts affected by the petitioner's brother for his business. The maximum penalty imposed under Exts.P1 to P1(C) orders was reduced to 150% of the tax evaded, which was to be ascertained in accordance with the earlier directions. The petitioner was directed to produce all the books of accounts and other evidence and statements relating to the recoveries and the affidavit of the persons named in Recovery No.8 before the Intelligence Officer within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. In purported compliance of Ext.P4 order, the first respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... points out that though the appellate authority had directed the petitioner to produce the relevant books of accounts, statements and affidavits, the direction was not complied with, compelling the first respondent to conduct the enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioner. It is contended that since, under Ext.P4, Exts.P1 to P1 (C) orders were not set aside and de novo enquiry ordered, the examination of witnesses was just a formality, for which the presence of the petitioner was not required. It is submitted that Exts.P5 to P5 (C) are well founded and need not be interfered with. 4. A perusal of Ext.P5 order shows that the appellate authority had found substance in the contention of the petitioner that the Intelligence Officer had n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it filed by the first respondent, it is stated that in spite of direction in the appellate order to produce the books of accounts and other evidences, the petitioner had failed to do so and it was the first respondent who issued notice in Form No.17 on 24.09.2014, requiring the petitioner to produce the books of account on 8.10.2014. It is pertinent to note that, neither in the impugned orders nor in the counter affidavit, there is no allegation of the petitioner having failed to produce the books of account on 8.10.2014. On the other hand, what is stated is that, the dealer had not produced any books of accounts for any of the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 for verification now, in spite of the directions by the appellate author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
