9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer. By reading of the assessment order dated 31.12.1993, it is seen that the Assessing Officer did not consider the same, but rejected it by stating that such explanation is not acceptable. The Assessing Officer being the authority is bound to consider the explanation given by the assessee and thereafter, pass a reasoned order either accepting or rejecting the explanation. Joint Commissioner, who exercised his suo motu revision has not considered the specific contention raised by the assessee that voucher No.35 was inadvertently prepared by the Stores Clerk, however, receipt of the above consignment was properly recorded in the Pass Register; that apart the specific plea raised by the assessee that they were never in the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liyan Kuluram Kosai instead of preparing it in the name of Naresh bros., Madras and the goods involved were received in the assessee's premises on 23.03.1991 in Lorry No. TN-28-2467. Further, the assessee explained that corresponding purchase voucher was pending to be prepared till 07.09.1992 as the goods were not ordered by the assessee and the issue has to be settled with the party with whom they placed orders and who had in turn, without the asessee's knowledge, advised some other third party ( Naresh and Bros.,Madras) to make supplies to the assessee. It was further explained that receipt of the above consignment was properly recorded in the assessee's Pass Register for receipt of goods at Page No.20 on 23.03.1991 itself; the hire cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessee in response to such notice issued under Section 34 of the TNGST Act reiterated its stand taken before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the relevant documents placed before the First Appellate Authority. 7. The Joint Commissioner, by order dated 19.11.1997 held that it is amazing to note that the claim of the dealer that the excess stock found at the time of inspection was sub-standard quality and kept in the register for passing of goods received without entering in the stock register and then returned to the seller are nothing but afterthought decision in respect of the purchases effected as per voucher No.35/07.09.1992 but not accounted for in the books. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble at the time of inspection, it could not have been presumed that there was sales suppression. It is the specific case of the assessee that explanation has been given to the Enforcement Wing Officers as well as the Assessing Officer. By reading of the assessment order dated 31.12.1993, it is seen that the Assessing Officer did not consider the same, but rejected it by stating that such explanation is not acceptable. The Assessing Officer being the authority is bound to consider the explanation given by the assessee and thereafter, pass a reasoned order either accepting or rejecting the explanation. 9. On taking note of the entire facts and materials, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the turnover. The Joint Commissioner, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
