9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ready lying in the depot and were sold to the party concerned from the depot. There was no prior contract of sale or purchase of these vehicles. Since the Tribunal has not examined this aspect of the case, it is desirable that the matter may be restored back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. In the result, the order of the Tribunal so far it relates to the assessment year 1992-93 is concerned is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to re-hear and re-decide the Appeal No. 1550 of 1999 relating to the assessment year 1992-93 (Central). - - - - - Dated:- 22-1-2009 - PRAKASH KRISHNA , JJ. PRAKASH KRISHNA J. These two revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onery was used by Faridabad depot with the result the presumption has been drawn that the applicant has made inter-State sales, wrongly. It is not the case of the applicant that the explanation furnished by it was not considered. If the authorities below have considered the explanations furnished by the applicant and have not found them sufficient, there appears to be no illegality. Acceptance or rejection of explanation is in the realm of the Tribunal which is the last fact finding authority. Non-acceptance of explanation by the Tribunal on sufficient grounds is no ground for interference by High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. So far as the assessment year 1991-92 is concerned, the findings recorded by the three authorities bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld show that the Tribunal has expressed its general agreement without recording any specific finding with the order of the first appellate authority. The Tribunal, being the last fact finding authority, should have considered the submissions of the applicant as to whether the transaction in question is stock transfer or inter-State sale by giving its own reasoning, may be in brief. The explanation furnished by the dealer-applicant in respect of 16 vehicles is that these vehicles were already lying in the depot and were sold to the party concerned from the depot. There was no prior contract of sale or purchase of these vehicles. Since the Tribunal has not examined this aspect of the case, it is desirable that the matter may be restored back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
