9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act, 1963. Exhibit P16 has a chequered history. Against the earlier order of penalty imposed by the second respondent, the petitioner had pursued the matter up to the level of revision before the Commissioner. That revision was dismissed as per exhibit P 11. Though it is stated as dismissal, it is actually seen that the Commissioner had made it clear that the case was one of open remand befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer has passed orders in this case in a very casual manner. Rubber is taxable at the last purchase point, but the same has been shown as 'first purchase' in the proceedings. The suppression worked out is also incorrect as revealed from the Deputy Commissioner's proceedings. All these factors should be borne in mind while passing fresh orders. Therefore, it can be seen that the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rifications/directions contained in exhibit P11 order. As per exhibit P15 petitioner also made a request for copies of certain documents. Dr. Mohammed Kutty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends that the petitioner is entitled to get back the documents seized and only then the petitioner will be in a position to take a proper defence. Exhibit P16 is the order passed pursuant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ladder once and this is the second round. As already observed above, the records seized had not been returned to the petitioner. The crucial aspects directed to be borne in mind by the Commissioner in exhibit P11 had not been adverted to at all. All that apart though the petitioner had specifically pointed out to the first respondent that the second respondent had once closed the proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
