9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h December, 1981. On detailed survey of the stock and examination of account books it was found that goods never came to his shop on that date. As per the statement of the proprietor of the assessee-firm, Shri Surendra Singh, goods in question were never imported by him. He also stated that someoneelse must have used the petitioner's name for importing goods, and he or assessee-firm had not taken delivery of the said goods. The respondent issued notice under section 22(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the enquiry of the alleged goods. The petitioner complied with the said notice. The respondent-department recorded the statement of Gurubachan Singh, partner of the transport firm, who has st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter from the driver of the vehicle concerned. Accordingly the tax levied on Sales of Rs. 45,000 and penalty of Rs. 9,000 under section 16(1)(e) was set aside. The penalty under section 22(6)(b) and interest under section 11-B were also reduced. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the assessing authority for re-examination. The respondent again passed assessment order on 6th July, 1985, after remand and accordingly tax as well as penalty of Rs. 4,500 and Rs. 9,000, respectively, were levied. Aggrieved by this order the assessee preferred appeal before the appellate authority who vide order dated 23rd April, 1986 dismissed the appeal on the ground that octroi has been deposited by the assessee. The petitioner preferred s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admittedly found at the time of verification and transporter had shown his inability to verify that the goods delivered at the place of destination, i.e., the shop of the petitioner but he has stated that delivery of the goods at the place of destination can only be known from the concerned driver. In view of the above situation mere depositing of octroi would not be conclusive evidence to prove the import of the goods, therefore, the evidence of driver is relevant to resolve the controversy as to whom actual delivery was given against R.R. in dispute. Thus, the driver's evidence was necessary to coming to the conclusion and the appellate authorities are not right in observing that according to the remand order, further enquiry was not to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
