9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propose to dispose of all the matters by this common order. 2. For the convenience facts are taken from WP No. 15484/07 (M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of M.P. and others). The petitioner, at the relevant period, was manufacturer of coke briquettes. For manufacture of coke briquettes, at the relevant time, there was an exemption to the unit to purchase coal on concessional rates, use it in the manufacturing of coke briquettes and to sell it in the market. The petitioner was manufacturing coke briquettes so it was exempted and was not liable to pay commercial tax, entry tax, etc.on the purchase of coal and on the manufactured item, namely, coke briquettes. Petitioner was assessed for the assessment year 1997-98 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sets by hiring it and for this purpose, they produced contract agreement before the authority. On the basis of material produced before the Assessing Officer and the Revisional Authority, the Revisional Authority recorded a finding that no proper evidence was collected in respect of the sales for the year 1997-98. The report of the task force was nonspeaking and without any supporting documentary evidence. After three years of the initial assessment order, if the unit is found closed in physical inspection, then on the basis of this, a finding cannot be recorded that before three years the unit was not functional. If the allegations are that the unit had not used the raw material in the manufacturing of coke briquettes and has sold it in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, in the interest of justice, the Revisional Authority had remanded the matter with a direction to extend an opportunity to the assessee before reassessment and for verification of the sales by the Assessing Officer. The Revisional Authority had further found that it was also not verified how many purchasers were found bogus, and in this regard the explanation of the assessee was also not obtained. So far as report of CBI is concerned, it was not filed before the assessing officer and that could not have been the basis for re-assessment. The report of CBI could have been examined by the Assessing Officer and after due examination of the said report along with allegations and evidence, the matter could have been decided. With the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 12.01.06, a revision was preferred by the petitioner, but vide Order (Annexure P/11) dated 19.07.06 the revision was dismissed. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submit; (i) that remand order (Annexure P/5) was not followed by the Assessing Officer, and even at the second time the Revisional Authority while passing Order (P/11) has not considered the fact that earlier remand order (Annexure P/5) was not complied with; (ii) the burden was on the Department to prove that the report of task force was correct, but no opportunity was allowed to the petitioner for cross-examination of the concerned officer who had submitted the report of task force; (iii) reliance is place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of tax evasion by the unit and on this evidence, an opportunity ought to have been extended to the assessee to rebut the allegations, and thereafter to pass a speaking order; (iv) That, during the period in which it is alleged that the unit remained closed, the premises were inspected by Manager DIC, Labour Department, Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer and they had duly certified that unit was functional. These reports were ignored by the Assessing Officer; (v) That, the Assessing Officer ought to have passed a reasoned order, while on earlier occasion, a format was prepared and by the help of computer and all the assessment orders were passed which were not speaking orders; (vi) That, which transactions were found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered by the Assessing Officer even without production of any material by the assessee. The Assessing Officer ought to have recorded a fresh finding that there was tax evasion by the petitioner, on the basis of some material and documentary evidence tax evasion was found proved. But, in the Assessment Order and Revisional Order we do not find any such finding while it was necessary for the Assessing Officer and Revisional Authority to record such findings. 9. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that after narration of the facts, the Revisional Authority because of non-production of any material before it by the petitioners reiterated the earlier order only, while as per directions issued by the Revisional Authority which are r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
