9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the applicants is that applicant No. 1 is a partnership firm of transporters having offices at Delhi and Calcutta. On this particular occasion applicant No. 1 carried goods from Delhi to Calcutta and delivered the same to 160 consignees. A notice in form 28 was served on the applicant alleging that names and addresses of the consignees in respect of the said goods were not disclosed. It was further alleged by respondent No. 1 that he had reason to believe that applicant was liable to pay tax under section 11 in respect of the said goods sold by the applicant in West Bengal. A reply was given by the applicant stating that the firm was not in the business of selling in goods and it had no authority in the customary course of business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thus the respondent No. 1 treated the applicant No. 1 as a casual trader and assessed it to tax amounting to Rs. 2,50,000. Applicant No. 1 has denied that it is a casual trader or that it had disclosed false names and addresses of consignees or that it had disposed of the goods otherwise than by way of delivery to the consignees. It is said that it is not possible for a transporter to scrutinise whether correct numbers of registration certificates of consignees are put by the consignors. Its further case is that it was never apprised of the result of verification at the end of the consignees so that it could make its representation on the said allegation. It is also stated that no ground is mentioned in the assessment order by respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... main application the applicants have said in the reply that the letters obtained from different consignees were not made available to the applicants at the time of hearing of the assessment proceeding. No opportunity was given to the applicants to cross-examine those persons in order to rebut the contents of those letters. 5.. After hearing arguments of both sides we are satisfied that the impugned assessment order dated November 22, 1995 cannot be sustained because no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the applicants inasmuch as the denials in writing obtained from the consignees, names of whom were disclosed by the applicants, were not furnished to the applicants at the time of hearing of the assessment case. For that rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
