9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the Department and Sri S. M. K. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, counsel for the assessee, assisted by Sri Manish Misra. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, is a public limited company involved in the manufacturing and sale of tractors. The company has its principal place in U.P., Lucknow. During the assessment years under consideration, the assessee has sent goods to Uttranchal-via-U. P. The tractors were passed through U.P. and going to its destination in Uttranchal and other places. The transit passes were made at "incoming check-post" and were due for cancellation at the "out going check-posts" of the U.P. For some reason or other, these transit passes were not put on the "outgo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of U.P. [1986] 62 STC 381 (SC); [1986] UPTC 721 (SC). With this background, I heard the counsel of both the parties and gone through the material available on record. It may be mentioned that the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sodhi Transport [1986] 62 STC 381 (SC); [1986] UPTC 721 observed that (at page 391 of 62 STC): ". . . the words contained in section 28B of the Act only require the authorities concerned to raise a rebuttable presumption, that the goods must have been sold in the State if the transit pass is not handed over to the officer at the check-post or the barrier near the place of exit from the State. The transporter concerned is not shut out from showing by producing reliable evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, the presumption was rebutted. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the assessee has already furnished sufficient evidence to prove that the goods have crossed the border of the U.P. and were never sold in the U.P. The Tribunal is a final fact finding authority as per the ratio laid down in the case of Kamala Ganapathy Subramaniam v. Controller of Estate Duty [2002] 253 ITR 692 (SC). In the light of above discussions, I find no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's impugned order which is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. No question of law emerges from the impugned order of the Tribunal. In the result, all the revisions filed by the Department ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
