9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 194 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of tax - Betel Nut - no material fact available on record to show that the revisionist has purchased 4700Kg. betel - tax levied on the basis of ex-parte SIB survey - HELD THAT - From the perusal of record it is clear that only on the basis of a bill/invoice which has been discovered by the Revenue, the said transaction has been brought to tax with regard to purchase of 4700Kg. betel nut alleged to have been purchased from M/s Trade Impex, Kanpur. The revisionist throughout the aforesaid proceedings has denied the transaction in question - It has further been brought on record that M/s Trade Impex in their return have also denied the said transaction and a confirmation was sought in this regard from the Assistant Commissioner, who by means of report dated 06.02.2012, confirmed the fact that no such transaction has been undertaken by M/s Trade Impex. Once the Department itself could not verify the said transaction, then the same cannot be included in the turnover of the revisionist who is the other contracting party - there is no possibility that the transaction in question has ever taken place and in absence of any such evidence, satisfaction recorded by the Tribunal is on the face of it infirm and is liable to be interfered by this Court. Revision allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to order of Commercial Tax Tribunal on tax liability based on SIB survey report and alleged purchase of betel nuts from M/s Trade Impex. Analysis: 1. Substantial Questions of Law: The revisionist challenged the Commercial Tax Tribunal's order based on substantial questions of law. The first question pertained to the legality of dismissing the appeal without concrete evidence of the revisionist's purchase of 4700Kg betel nuts from M/s Trade Impex. The second question raised concerns about the sustainability of lower authorities' orders based on presumption. 2. Background and Allegations: The revisionist was made liable for tax based on a report by the SIB, which indicated a purchase of 4700Kg betel nuts from M/s Trade Impex. The revisionist, engaged in the betel nut business, denied the transaction, leading to the imposition of tax and penalty by the Assessing Authority. 3. Appeals Process: The revisionist appealed the decision, resulting in the First Appellate Authority partially allowing the appeal by maintaining the transaction but providing some relief in turnover. Subsequently, the revisionist's second appeal to the Tribunal was rejected, upholding the First Appellate Authority's decision. 4. Judicial Review: The Tribunal justified the tax liability based on the SIB's discovery of a bill related to the alleged purchase. However, the revisionist argued that the Revenue's report confirmed that M/s Trade Impex did not have any sales to the revisionist in the relevant period, undermining the basis for tax imposition. 5. Court's Decision: After reviewing the evidence, the Court found that the transaction in question was not supported by verifiable evidence and that tax liability cannot be solely based on a single document. The Court emphasized the need for reliable evidence before taxing a transaction, especially when the other contracting party denied the transaction. 6. Conclusion: Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and lower authorities, ruling in favor of the revisionist. The Court highlighted the lack of concrete evidence to support the tax imposition and emphasized the importance of verifiable evidence in tax assessments. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the Court's decision.
|
