9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly 11, 2006 it appears that the matter was taken up by the court and the case was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the assessee to enable him, to bring on record certain facts and documents for the purpose of establishing the existence of the firm from whom the purchases were made and reflected in the account books. But, no document or material was filed, though time was granted by the order dated July 11, 2006. The revision was argued finally without asking for any further time. This also negates the case of the dealer-applicant. No merit in the revision. No question of law is involved therein. - 903 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2008 - PRAKASH KRISHNA , J. PRAKASH KRISHNA J. The present revision arises out of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was issued by the Commissioner asking the dealer to give reply and participate in the proceedings. In the show-cause notice it is mentioned that on inquiry made by the Trade Tax Officer (SIB), Head Quarter, Lucknow, it has been found that the applicant has shown purchases of raw material from Delhi party but on inquiry it has been found that such purchases are bogus, such selling dealers do not exist at all. Similarly, the sales made by the applicant to the dealer at Agra on verification have been found to be false and fictitious. The bills issued by the dealer are unnumbered and hand-written and not printed ones. On these basis, an inference was drawn that the dealer-applicant is not manufacturing any goods, but is a trader. No reply was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o justification to cancel the eligibility certificate subsequently. The learned Standing Counsel for the Department, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted to the dealer-applicant that on earlier occasion also an ex parte order cancelling the eligibility certificate was passed by the Commissioner. The order was set aside by the Tribunal with a view to afford another opportunity of hearing to the applicant. It appears that the leniency shown by the Tribunal by restoring back the matter to the Commissioner and affording opportunity of hearing was not understood by the dealer in its right perspective. As has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e perusal of the order of the Commissioner would show that it has taken pains to give details to record specific instances to show that the applicant has not made any purchases from Delhi party. Notices issued to the alleged sellers of Delhi have been returned with the endorsement that no such dealer exists on the spot. The burden was obviously on the applicant to establish by cogent evidence that he has made purchases from such selling party. With regard to the alleged sales also, an elaborate inquiry was conducted by the Department. In the said inquiry it was found that most of the sales made by the dealer-applicant are not verifiable. On these facts, it is but obvious that the Department was justified to draw an inference that the dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
