9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (10) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said order. The respondent-assessee is a dealer in Indian-made foreign liquor. It appears that he took over the entire stock of one Manohara Wines, which stock admittedly as quantified was of the value of Rs. 22,004.11. The said stock was transferred on 31st May, 1973. The assessing officers sought to assess the respondent on such stock taken over by him from Manohara Wines. The consistent case of the assessee was that, out of the above stock so taken over by him from Manobara Wines, goods of the value of Rs. 8,275.11 had already suffered tax and that the balance of the stock so taken over could only be taken to be goods which could be subjected to sales tax as if those sales were first sales. This was his case throughout, before the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence to be let in, though there is an interdict on such acceptance of evidence before it. According to the learned counsel, the provision in section 39-B would only enable the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to admit such evidence, provided that he is satisfied that such evidence, which is in the shape of account books, etc., is genuine and acceptable. That being the only provision whereby an assessee can prove before the assessing authorities in the higher hierarchy as to the nature of exemption and the quantity of exemption which he could claim, the learned counsel says that the assessee cannot be allowed to let in any evidence in substantiation of his original claim that a sum of Rs. 8,275.11 had already suffered tax, for which purpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner, but, for reasons not known nor clear, he did not take the trouble of finding out whether the contention of the assessee was true or not; but, in a blanket order passed by him, he was of the view that there was no evidence to substantiate the dichotomy claimed by the assessee that he was entitled to exemption as prayed for. Finding that, as the only way of proving his case, which was always consistent, was to enlighten his contention, the assessee sought the help of the suppliers of the stock to Manohara Wines, viz., Ajantha Wines, and produced the bills of Manohara Wines to further establish his case that the disputed turnover had already suffered tax in the first instance. The Tribunal thought that, in the interests of justice, an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered to correct that previous authority in case of an error in judgment. It would lead not only to an anomaly, but also to a denial of justice. As we have already observed, though in tax law there is no intendment, yet, as the principle of justice being done should be known and made known is applicable to all cases and in all circumstances, we are of the view that the admission of evidence in this case in the sense of substantiation of the contention already urged by the assessee, for which the necessary documents were already in the court, would not amount to admission of evidence for the first time before the Tribunal as is sought to be contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader. We are therefore of the view that, in the pecul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
