9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commercial Tax Officer framed the assessment granting exemption in respect of the second sales of dal. The Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of his revisional powers under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), issued show cause notice dated April 8, 1986. The said show cause notice was as a result of the action of the department in cancelling the registration certificate of M/s. Sanjay Traders, Agapura, with effect from April 1, 1980, pursuant to which disallowance of similar exemptions claimed by other dealers was confirmed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 275, 276, 377, 378 and 396 of 1983, dated September 9, 1985. Basing on the said order of the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was given before the revisional authority, the assessee did not produce any evidence, therefore, the evidence, which was sought to be produced, has no merit and accordingly the claim of the petitioner was rejected, even though it was sought for a remand to consider the additional evidence filed before the Tribunal as well as to give further opportunity to produce the necessary evidence to prove the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has come up in the present revision. 3.. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal was not justified in considering the merits of the additional evidence without receiving the same and rejecting the appeal on the ground that the evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even if the vendor of the petitioner did not pay the tax, in so far as the present petitioner is concerned no liability can be fastened with reference to the second sales effected by the petitioner. The learned counsel also contended that certain enquiries were conducted with reference to the vendor of the petitioner in respect of which the petitioner has no knowledge and ultimately on the premise that the registration certificate of M/s. Sanjay Traders was cancelled with retrospective effect, the exemption granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. Before withdrawing the exemption, the petitioner must be given sufficient opportunity so as to prove that the petitioner had in fact made the purchases from M/s. Sanjay Traders and M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e registration granted in its favour was cancelled. The said cancellation was even confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, there is no case in favour of the petitioner/dealer to accept its claim for remand. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner failed to produce any acceptable evidence to prove that it had in fact made purchases from M/s. Sanjay Traders. In the absence of any such evidence the rejection of the additional evidence and the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal is proper and just. 5.. Heard both sides and considered the material on record. 6.. The dispute is whether the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal confirming the revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner withdrawing the exemption gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have received some goods purchased by them. The petitioner also filed xerox copies of the claims said to have been preferred by M/s. Sanjay Traders before the railway authorities seeking compensation in respect of some such goods and also xerox copies of railway receipts under which the firm paid for lifting the goods purchased by it. When such material was filed, the Tribunal ought to have received the same and ought to have considered on merits. Without receiving the said additional material, the Tribunal superficially looked into that material and felt that no useful purpose would be served by producing such material and therefore there is no case either for accepting the additional evidence or for remanding. If the Tribunal relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State does not shift the liability to pay the tax on the second seller. Here we are concerned only whether the first dealer is the real and identifiable or not? In order to prove the same, it is proper and just to give proper opportunity to the petitioner, who is only second seller, according to him. 9.. Under the above circumstances, without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and also the merits and demerits of the additional evidence sought to be filed before the Appellate Tribunal, we think it appropriate to set aside the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and to remit the matter to the revisional authority for fresh consideration in the light of the additional evidence that was filed before the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
