9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yarn. For the assessment year 1982-83, originally the assessment was framed on December 6, 1983 by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana. Petitioner-dealer had claimed deduction of sales made to seven registered dealers under section 5(2)(a)(ii) which was disallowed by the Assessing Authority. Appeal against the assessment order was filed before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the first Appellate Authority ), who vide its order dated August 5, 1985 set aside the assessment order and remanded the case for assessment afresh after allowing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3.. Before the Assessing Authority, after remand, counsel appearing for the dealer filed an appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a dealer only against valid declaration forms issued by genuine buyers for the transactions actually having taken place. It is also well-settled that ST-XXII forms are only a prima facie evidence for sales having been made and these forms in no way can be taken as a conclusive evidence qua transactions between two dealers. The facts as emerge from the case in hand are that all the seven dealers to whom the sales were alleged to have been made (i) issued fake declarations, (ii) denied sales to them or (iii) did not exist. The appellant has failed to adduce evidence to substantiate their claim during the lengthy proceedings before the lower authorities. I find no force in the argument that the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces, the penalty imposed under section 10(7) is also legal and justified. 4.. Assessee filed a petition under section 22(1) of the Punjab Act claiming certain questions of law which according to the assessee arose from the order of the Tribunal, which was declined by the Tribunal, holding that no referable question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 5.. A perusal of the order of the Assessing Authority shows that inspite of repeated efforts made, summons could not be served on the purchasing dealers as they were not available. Efforts were made to serve the purchasing dealers through the Taxation Inspector as well but without success. The assessee was then asked to produce t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had failed to exercise the required degree of diligence and had not taken adequate steps to satisfy that the transactions were with genuine dealers. These orders were upheld by the first appellate authority and Tribunal as well. Reference applications filed by the assessee were dismissed by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court. On further appeal, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under: We are unable to see how the questions which were sought to be referred were only of fact and were not of law. All the orders of the departmental authorities including the Tribunal appear to show that prima facie the assessee had complied with the requirements of the statute and the rules for the purpose of claiming deductions. So long as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
