9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation had been received that large quantities of goods had been purchased in Calicut in the name of Kissan Spices Traders ("Kissan"), Mahe, whose telegraphic address was the same as that of the assessee in Calicut. These goods were sent from Calicut to various parties outside the State, all in the name of Kissan. Kissan had opened a bank account in the United Commercial Bank at Calicut (Account No. 542) originally with a sum of Rs. 501, but which subsequently accumulated to Rs. 3,58,412.45. The address of the Kissan given to the bank was the same as that of the assessee in Calicut. Kissan was owned by one K. Hamza who had been registered as a dealer at Mahe in Pondicherry. The registration was obtained by him by furnishing a security in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Assistant Commissioner, who referred to the fact that it had been found by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by their judgment in T.A. No. 205 of 1970 dated 11th October, 1973, that Mahe is neither a producing centre nor a marketing centre for pepper and ginger, but the Tellicherry pepper dealers are duping the Government of Kerala by accounting their local purchase as purchased from Mahe by obtaining registration certificates in Mahe in the name of fictitious persons or benamis. This was a well-known fact which had been judicially noticed by the Tribunal in another proceeding, and that fact was also taken into account by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for affirming the finding of the assessing authority. The Tribunal by its e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities on cogent evidence. The Tribunal ignored the fact that the original stand of the assessee in reply to the show cause notice was that none of the partners had any knowledge of Hamza. The Tribunal relied upon the evidence of the partner that he had seen Hamza two months before he made a statement before the assessing authority. The Tribunal failed to notice the inconsistency between these two positions. The Tribunal had no evidence to support the conclusion that all the sales effected by a person called Hamza, who used the assessee's address for opening a bank account, for despatching goods, and for other purposes of his business, was not a mere name-lender, but a real businessman. The Tribunal ignored the fact that even the very re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
