9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not contradicted before the assessing authority, was available with the assessing officer, which was relied upon to hold that the bills said to have been issued by him bearing the said address in the years 1983-84, cannot be accepted as valid bills, we have no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the second respondentTribunal. Appeal dismissed. - Writ Petition Nos. 5924,5925, 5926 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 9-6-2010 - IBRAHIM KALIFULLA F.M. AND SUNDRESH M.M. , JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA J. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the second respondent-Tribunal in T.C.R. Nos. 797 to 799 of 1997 dated December 1, 1999 against the common order passed in M.T.A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, who by his order dated October 17, 1986, dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioner. Further appeals were preferred by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the STAT ) in M.T.A. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1987 and M.T.M.P. No. 75 of 1987 in M.T.A. No. 16 of 1987. The STAT however took a view that when once the purchases were made by the petitioner from a registered dealer, it should be presumed that such purchases were bona fide unless the said presumption was rebutted by substantial legal evidence. The STAT therefore allowed the appeals preferred by the petitioner. The State preferred tax case revisions in T.C.R. Nos. 797 to 799 of 1997 before the second respondent-Tribunal herein and by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selling dealer was valid at the relevant time, merely because the selling dealer was not found subsequently, it cannot be a ground to deny the purchasing dealer the benefit of exemption. We heard the learned Special Government Pleader. We also perused the orders of the lower authorities, the STAT as well as the second respondentTribunal. Having heard the respective counsel and having perused the orders, we find that the order of the second respondent-Tribunal in having restored the order of the assessing authority is well justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. In order to appreciate the conclusion of the second respondent-Tribunal, it will be appropriate to refer to the nature of the analysis made with regard to the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ammed Meera Sha has not done any business at their mills in 1984-85. The registering authority has cancelled the registration with effect from January 1, 1985. The learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) has also stated this point in his order. From this, it is clear that the seller is an existing dealer. As against the above analysis made by the STAT, the second respondentTribunal has made an examination of the material evidence available on record and has noted the factual matrix to the following effect: We have considered the contentions carefully and perused the records. Insofar as the assessment year 1983-84 is concerned, it is seen that the officers of the Department enquired the proprietor of the oil mills where Thiru S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny business during the assessment year 1984-85 and therefore for the suppression practised in the business, tax and penalty were levied. Therefore, it is a question of accepting either the view of the STAT or that of the second respondent-Tribunal. When we examine the conclusions of the STAT, we are unable to subscribe to the conclusion based on the facts stated in its order, which had been extracted above. As far as the dealer S. Abdul Khader of Saleem Traders was concerned, the second respondent-Tribunal has noted that there was a direct evidence, viz., the owner of the premises, where the dealer was said to have carrying on his business. The said person had deposed before the assessing authority that the concerned dealer, viz., S. Ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other hand, when we analyse the conclusion of the STAT, we find that though the dealer Mohamed Meera Sha appeared before the assessing authority, what all he has stated was that he was unwell and therefore, he could not do any business for the assessment year 1984-85. Thereafter, the said person did not make himself available before the assessing authority for giving any further evidence. The mill owner, however, came before the assessing authority and made a statement to the effect that the so called dealer Mohamed Meera Sha did not do any business in his premises in the year 1984-85, but yet, the STAT would reach a conclusion to the effect that the said dealer was an existing dealer, merely because there was a registered certificate e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
