9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever made any inter-State sales in the past and in future. For the assessment year in dispute, applicant has been assessed to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act on the basis of one booking register seized at the time of survey made by the STO (SIB) at the premises of transporter M/s. Kanpur Delhi Goods Carrier Limited, Varanasi. In the booking register there were 55 transactions in the name of M/s. Kumar Trading Company. When the applicant was confronted with the aforesaid information and with the booking register, it was submitted that the said entries did not relate to it. It was contended that there were three registered Firms in the name of Kumar Trading Company in Varanasi itself and in the register, the name, address etc. were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held in first appeal and by the Tribunal. 3. Heard Shri Kunwar Saksena, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the assessment against the applicant has been made merely on presumption, surmises and conjuncture. He submitted that the entries in the booking register do not reveal that they are connected with the applicant. The name and address are not mentioned. Transport Company has not produced bill and builties relating to the transaction which could be relevant to identify to whom the transaction relates. In the cross-examination the person concerned has refused to recognize the applicant and has not admitted that any booking was made by the appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ading Company are mentioned. There are absolutely no material to connect such transactions with the applicant Firm. It appears that the alleged transactions of the booking register have been connected with the applicant merely on surmises and conjuncture without any specific material in this regard. It is settled principle of law that in case, if the Revenue wants to rely upon the entries of the document seized from the premises of third party, the burden lies upon the Revenue Authority to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the said entry and to connect the said entry with the dealer, in case, if the dealer denies to have any connection with such entry. In the present case, Revenue has failed to prove that such entries are related to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
