TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of account was shown in which no discrepancy was pointed out. The adverse inference has been drawn against the revisionist on the basis of two bills, i.e., 759 and 760 dated 26.10.2006 by which certain bags of wheat flour and Chokar were sold and at the time of interception for 46 quintals of Chokar no bill was produced, for which explanation has been submitted that the driver by mistake could not take the bill no. 759. Once, in absence of any material on record to suggest that any purchases have been made except the sale of Chokar in question that too was issued from the stock maintained by the revisionist, no adverse inference can be drawn. The liability of sales tax has been fastened upon the revisionist only on the basis of the afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench Varanasi was legally justified in disbelieving the fact that the sale of Chokar on 26.10.2006 were made out of books when the findings recorded by the first appellate authority that 48 quintals of chokar were sold out of the stock of 76 quintals held on 26.10.2006? (D) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench Varanasi was legally justified in rejecting the account books and making best judgment assessment merely on presumption and surmises despite the fact that the first appellant authority by a detailed order had held that none of the ground taken by the assessing authority warranted rejection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Authority has restored the assessment order which is bad. 3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supported the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court had perused the record. 5. Admittedly, the business premises of the revisionist was surveyed on 8.11.2006 when the flour mill was closed and as no business activity was carrying on, as stated, no responsible person was available on account of which the books of account could not be shown. Nonetheless, subsequently, the books of account was shown in which no discrepancy was pointed out. The adverse inference has been drawn against the revisionist on the basis of two bills, i.e., 759 and 760 dated 26.10.2006 by which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
