9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1992-93. An extra demand of Rs. 2,70,917 was raised on account of the petitioner's failure to produce statutory forms in respect of sales, claimed to have been made to registered dealers. The quantum of transactions covered by the forms which were required to be produced was Rs. 38,70,235. An appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Appeal I. In view of the submission made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact it had made wrong statement before the first appellate authority. Considering the same, the Tribunal directed deposit of Rs. 1.5 lakhs by September 11, 2000, while noticing that requisite forms were claimed to be in possession of the petitioner. Tribunal felt with the acceptability of the forms will be examined while the appeal is taken up; but with a view to discourage assessees making in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.. It is undisputed that a wrong statement was made before the first appellate authority about the possession of forms at the time the stay application was taken up. But we feel that should not have been taken to be the determinative factor regarding crucial question as to whether the forms produced were acceptable or not. It is true as contended by learned counsel for revenue that forms produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
